What can The Lord and The Bible tell us about stars?
The following passages are from the King James version.
Psalm 147:4 "He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names."
Where does he tell this number? So how many are there -- according to scripture? And did he really come up with names for them all?! (Interestingly the New Internation Version says, "He *determines* the number of the stars..." which I dare say is a safer statement; one which doesn't have to be defended against current scientific knowledge.)
Revelation 1:16 "And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword..."
How big are stars? Are they small things? Alternatively, how big was the Almighty when he held these stars? By my estimation he would have to be a good fraction of the size of our galaxy (in which case that would have been some sword)! Yeah, I understand the metaphor concept, but what is that a metaphor of? Besides...
Revelation 12:1 "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:"
More metaphors? What do they mean? I can play apologist and honestly imagine a fairly reasonable (though strangely "artsy") explanation: this is how the woman *appeared* from the perspective of earth, wherein stars would appear tiny and she could appear just above the moon... but then it just falls apart when I try to add "clothed with the sun" and say she's behind or blinded by the sun... but... there are... stars visible, and.... aaaagggh!
How many times can we fall back on the metaphor explanation?
Again, in Revelation 6:13 we see stars as small objects: "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind."
Come on. How inventive, patient and tireless does one have to be to support such credibility-straining stories?
If scripture is the word of God, I find it remarkable that He would be so ignorant of his own creation. Much more reasonable to me is that it's further evidence that scripture came from human brains, nothing more.
If indeed the Bible is merely "inspired" by God (which many believers would dispute) what exactly does that mean? He oversaw the process of recording errors? Is "inspired" just a semantic tool to keep things vague?
And then why do some wholeheartedly accept stories such as Adam & Eve, and Noah's Ark? Why do people believe the Bible prophesies even events of today?
How can we possibly *know* what is true if it's all just *inspired* by God? You're saying what I've said many times: We cannot rely on any of it because it was written by mere men.
Finally, with all due respect, how do you *know* that Revelation is about a dream?
The overarching theme is that it can't be both literal and figurative; both of Divine and human origin, and believers can't agree on what's what.
I asked what "inspired by God" means. And I asked how we can know what is true and literal if that's the case. You gave no answer to either question.
I'm sorry, but I don't know what inspired *means* in this context (to you or to anyone who may have a different definition). If I told you I wrote a book but it wasn't all my words -- I was inspired by a knowledgeable ghost author -- would you be able to tell which words were mine?
I pointed out that many believers differ with you about scripture, and Revelation in particular. You gave no explanation for how that could be if they claim (as you did) to know what it means.
I asked how you know Revelation is about a dream.
"...anyone, who has actually done a little research, would know."
"Have you ever actually READ Revelations???"
(Yes, I have read Revelation -- singular. Given your misspelling of the title, I could turn your glib insinuation back on you. But I won't; I do believe you've read it.)
...and then you suggested that ignorance is OK! -- as long as it's your own:
"...basis upon which religion rests...FAITH. I may not be able to explain my reasoning..."
... and you had said, "No wonder Revelations is so hard to understand, am I right..."
Yes, you are quite right! So why imply that simply READING it (to borrow your all-caps) will make everything obvious to me? I guess I'm supposed to know, too, that a VISION is that dream you mentioned. (How blind of me!) But unlike you, I would not jump to that conclusion even if I had reason to believe the Bible is the unadulterated word of God! Nor do all believers, Jojo; there are those who believe
The driving point of my original question -- that scripture seems to be the product of mere human thought -- also seems to have evaded you. You say this dream/vision is "pointed out clearly starting in vs. 9" (I gather you meant *chapter* 9, and the word "vision" is found only in verse 17; nowhere else in Revelation, in several versions of the Bible I checked.) But as I stated, the "stars" passages show evidence to me of human origins of scripture, so to give me more scripture as evidence of your dream assertion seems odd. Why would that "clearly" hit me over the head? I still believe it was simply a *man* usingthe word vision. Even if the word "dream" were used (it's not, in any version I checked) my question would remain.
Even if there were a verse that read, "The book of Revelation is about a dream!" I'd still ask you or anyone how they know that to be true.
So... your snide answer for how you
Revelation 9:17 - "And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone." Not very compelling to me.
As you said, any lack of understanding on my part does not mean the Bible is false or uninspired. Since I don't know what the latter means to you, I did not and could not have claimed otherwise.
The fact is, Jojo, ignorance -- yours, mine, or anyone's -- *is* OK when it comes to deciphering scripture! It's a mess! I didn't criticize you for not understanding it; you criticized me.
So does your defensiveness come from the fact that you can't answer my questions? Though that would be kind of understandable, if that's the case, how am I to blame for it? After all, you have chosen the side of faith.
That's the problem I have. If someone admits they believe just because, I'm fine. I think I speak for many non-believers when I say this. Making testable assertions changes the rules.
Whether the topic is religion, astrology or alien autopsies, I'm cautious about distinguishing fact from faith, and assertions of knowledge from opinion or guess. What you call "common historical knowledge" in this case, I call common religious belief.
I've seen this kind of thing often. Someone of faith makes an assertion which (apparently) they aren't prepared to defend --understandable because it *is* hard to defend -- so then when someone inquires about their
Jojo, I suspect you'll be dropping me from your 'fan' list after this reply, which took me *hours* to research and write. And although I was upset reading your last edit, I do wish you well.