End Times?

[IndigoChild5559]

Mat 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken

This is simply a VISION, meaning that it is symbolic, not literal.

Although we speak of meteors as falling stars, they are not stars at all. There is no such thing as a star falling, as they are light years away and not governed by earth's gravity.

 

[GoodAttention]

This is simply a VISION, meaning that it is symbolic, not literal.

Although we speak of meteors as falling stars, they are not stars at all. There is no such thing as a star falling, as they are light years away and not governed by earth's gravity.

The scriptures generally refer to stars as either the planets in the solar system or constellations.

Technically, the sun will darken as it becomes a red giant, consuming Mercury and Venus. Stars that are light years away will fade as we accelerate further away from other galaxies.

Not everything has to be either literal OR symbolic.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The scriptures generally refer to stars as either the planets in the solar system or constellations.

The people who wrote the Bible referred to any small spot of light in the dark sky as a star. This would include what we today would know as stars, as well as planets, and metriors igniting as they enter the atmospheres. This is because the authors of the books of the Bible lacked the knowledge we have today. For example, they had no idea that our sun is a star. I don't blame them for having less knowledge. I'm just accepting that as one of the reasons why they make scientific mistakes.

Technically, the sun will darken as it becomes a red giant, consuming Mercury and Venus. Stars that are light years away will fade as we accelerate further away from other galaxies.

The sun becoming a red giant is not what John of Patmos is referring to. He is relaying a symbolic vision about disastrous times for human beings. The sun will become a red giant in some 5 billion years. Humans will have long ceased to exist by then.

Not everything has to be either literal OR symbolic.

There are all different forms of figurative speech. Symbolism is one of them. Speaking metaphorically is another. Stories known by all to be fiction is yet another. But generally speaking, a statement is either literal or figurative. It cannot be both.

 

[GoodAttention]

The people who wrote the Bible referred to any small spot of light in the dark sky as a star. This would include what we today would know as stars, as well as planets, and metriors igniting as they enter the atmospheres. This is because the authors of the books of the Bible lacked the knowledge we have today. For example, they had no idea that our sun is a star. I don't blame them for having less knowledge. I'm just accepting that as one of the reasons why they make scientific mistakes.

At the same time they described what they saw with the vocabulary they had, why would we hold it against them for that to label them mistakes?

The sun becoming a red giant is not what John of Patmos is referring to. He is relaying a symbolic vision about disastrous times for human beings. The sun will become a red giant in some 5 billion years. Humans will have long ceased to exist by then.

You have just as equally described the poetry of John of Patmos. If indeed he was referring to the "tribulations" of the end of days, it is nice to know this happens before the Sun becomes a red giant.

There are all different forms of figurative speech. Symbolism is one of them. Speaking metaphorically is another. Stories known by all to be fiction is yet another. But generally speaking, a statement is either literal or figurative. It cannot be both.

They are not statements, they are verses.
When we consider verses we think of poetry, music, and/or spirituality.
Hence why a verse could be both FWIW.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

At the same time they described what they saw with the vocabulary they had, why would we hold it against them for that to label them mistakes?

Because they thought they were all the same thing when in fact they aren't.

It's no different than looking around at the horizon and perceiving the world as a circle, when in fact it is spheroid. The mistake is quite understandable. But it's still a mistake.

 

[GoodAttention]

Because they thought they were all the same thing when in fact they aren't.

I disagree.

Genesis is specific in describing the lights having different characteristics, since some were to mark “sacred times” such as “seeing” the planets Venus, Mars, or Jupiter, and others, specifically the zodiac constellations, were to “mark” the progression of days and years.

Light means light, I don’t know the Hebrew word but in Tamil it is “minum”. From this root we also have “mincarum” which is electricity. I believe it is important to not interpret scriptures through a 21st century understanding. You could call me approach “apologetic” but I will fight tooth and nail against such a label.

It's no different than looking around at the horizon and perceiving the world as a circle, when in fact it is spheroid. The mistake is quite understandable. But it's still a mistake.

I agree.

I would be interested to debate if such a description of the world exists in the Torah.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I disagree.

You disagree? Didn't you just imply that they believed planets were stars? Are you backtracking that now?

 

[GoodAttention]

You disagree? Didn't you just imply that they believed planets were stars? Are you backtracking that now?

Yes and no. I backtrack because I shouldn’t imply they believed in planets the same way we do.

I’m saying they describe “lights in the sky” in different ways. Single “lights” were given different names, such as Venus, Mars, and Jupiter. Did they know these were planets?

Groups of “lights in the sky” they described as constellations. The Greater light was the Sun, lesser light moon.

I think they understood them all as “lights”.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes and no. I backtrack because I shouldn’t imply they believed in planets the same way we do.

I’m saying they describe “lights in the sky” in different ways. Single “lights” were given different names, such as Venus, Mars, and Jupiter. Did they know these were planets?

Groups of “lights in the sky” they described as constellations. The Greater light was the Sun, lesser light moon.

I think they understood them all as “lights”.

They had no concept of other planets. The ancient world saw the planets as moving stars. That includes the authors of the Bible.

I shouldn't need to point out that just as planets are not stars, the Sun certainly IS a star. They didn't know that either.

And finally, it goes without saying that the moon is not a light. It functions like a mirror, reflecting the sun's light.

 

[GoodAttention]

They had no concept of other planets. The ancient world saw the planets as moving stars. That includes the authors of the Bible.

They saw planets as “wandering” heavenly bodies, sure.

I shouldn't need to point out that just as planets are not stars, the Sun certainly IS a star. They didn't know that either.

Yes, but they knew there was a difference between the Sun and planets in terms of when and how they appeared in the sky.

And finally, it goes without saying that the moon is not a light. It functions like a mirror, reflecting the sun's light.

Ok.

So are you saying the meaning of the verses were once literal but have slowly become symbolic?

That would be wrong. The majority of the verse remains descriptive in a literal sense of the time, but if you want to debate a single word “star” as being “wrong” today I won’t argue with that.

That’s if the translation is even correct, do you know if it is?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They saw planets as “wandering” heavenly bodies, sure.

Wandering stars, yes.

Yes, but they knew there was a difference between the Sun and planets in terms of when and how they appeared in the sky.

You are missing the point. They had no clue the Sun is a star. Nor did they have an concept of planets.

Ok.

So are you saying the meaning of the verses were once literal but have slowly become symbolic?

It was never literal. But even if I write a novel, the story will contain my view of how the world works. I might place the story in Los Angeles, a real city, or involve the FBI, a real agency. For the author of the Genesis 1 story, his view how the universe worked was riddled with factual errors, none of which were his fault. We just didn't know the truth yet.

That would be wrong. The majority of the verse remains descriptive in a literal sense of the time, but if you want to debate a single word “star” as being “wrong” today I won’t argue with that.

That’s if the translation is even correct, do you know if it is?

In Genesis 1:16, the Hebrew word translated as "star" is כּוֹכָב (kokhav). The term kokhav generally refers to a celestial body, specifically a star. It indicates shining objects in the night sky.

The Biblical cosmology basically had this idea of the "firmament," a solid dome that divides the "waters above" from "the waters below." It was on this firmament that the stars and stuff were attached.

 

[GoodAttention]

Wandering stars, yes.

You are missing the point. They had no clue the Sun is a star. Nor did they have an concept of planets.

It was never literal. But even if I write a novel, the story will contain my view of how the world works. I might place the story in Los Angeles, a real city, or involve the FBI, a real agency. For the author of the Genesis 1 story, his view how the universe worked was riddled with factual errors, none of which were his fault. We just didn't know the truth yet.

You didn’t translate Genesis 1:14 or 1:15.

Your argument is anachronistic, since you interpret star. When you interpret as “light in the sky” which is basically the simplest of observation, there is nothing wrong with Genesis 1.

In Genesis 1:16, the Hebrew word translated as "star" is כּוֹכָב (kokhav). The term kokhav generally refers to a celestial body, specifically a star. It indicates shining objects in the night sky.

The Biblical cosmology basically had this idea of the "firmament," a solid dome that divides the "waters above" from "the waters below." It was on this firmament that the stars and stuff were attached.

View attachment 98631

This picture and interpretation is during Christian times. It is my understanding that, whilst ancient people believed in such a way, Rabinnical Judaism says there is no contradiction to Genesis 1 and having the Sun at the center.

Adding on the understanding of Greater and Lesser, I interpret that they understood the light from the moon was dependent on the Greater star.

The moon doesn’t always shine, and is lesser because it submits to the Greater light to govern the night. Yes, it’s not a star.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You didn’t translate Genesis 1:14 or 1:15.

That's because Genesis 1:14-15 don't mention stars. The verse you need to look at is verse 16. Now, I'm not a Hebrew scholar -- I depend on such scholars to translate for me. Here how the Jewish Publication Society renders it in English:

יד וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה; וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים, וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים.	14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;
טו וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהָאִיר עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְהִי-כֵן.	15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so.
טז וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים: אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל, לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם, וְאֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה, וְאֵת הַכּוֹכָבִים.	16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.
יז וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים, בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם, לְהָאִיר, עַל-הָאָרֶץ.	17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

This picture and interpretation is during Christian times. It is my understanding that, whilst ancient people believed in such a way, Rabinnical Judaism says there is no contradiction to Genesis 1 and having the Sun at the center.

In my entire life, I have never met a Jew who believed the earth was at the center. But that's because I live in 2024, not 1000 CE.

Jewish tradition has always allowed for a non-literal interpretation. I think I mentioned that Maimonides, one of our greatest, most influential rabbis, taught that Genesis 1 was allegory, not history. Because of this, it was much, much, much easier for Jews to give up Geocentrism.

And FWIW, the sun is not at the center either. It is way out on a remote arm of our galaxy, far from its center. Nor is our galaxy at the center of the universe.

Adding on the understanding of Greater and Lesser, I interpret that they understood the light from the moon was dependent on the Greater star.

No. They simply saw that it was not as bright. They had no clue this was because it functioned like a mirror.

The moon doesn’t always shine, and is lesser because it submits to the Greater light to govern the night. Yes, it’s not a star.

Although it is quite common to speak of the moon shining, the truth is that this is inaccurate. The moon does not shine at all. It has no light of its own.

It's kind of like how we still continue to mention "the sunrise" even though we now know that its the earth turning on its axis, and not the sun that moves.

 

[GoodAttention]

That's because Genesis 1:14-15 don't mention stars. The verse you need to look at is verse 16. Now, I'm not a Hebrew scholar -- I depend on such scholars to translate for me. Here how the Jewish Publication Society renders it in English:

יד וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה; וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים, וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים.	14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;
טו וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהָאִיר עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְהִי-כֵן.	15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so.
טז וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים: אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל, לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם, וְאֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה, וְאֵת הַכּוֹכָבִים.	16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.
יז וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים, בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם, לְהָאִיר, עַל-הָאָרֶץ.	17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

So are you backtracking now?

What does Genesis 1:14 and 1:15 describe then, and is it still “factually” wrong?

In my entire life, I have never met a Jew who believed the earth was at the center. But that's because I live in 2024, not 1000 CE.


Jewish tradition has always allowed for a non-literal interpretation. I think I mentioned that Maimonides, one of our greatest, most influential rabbis, taught that Genesis 1 was allegory, not history. Because of this, it was much, much, much easier for Jews to give up Geocentrism.

And FWIW, the sun is not at the center either. It is way out on a remote arm of our galaxy, far from its center. Nor is our galaxy at the center of the universe.

Let me backtrack. I meant orbit, that is Earth around Sun, not center of universe.

No. They simply saw that it was not as bright. They had no clue this was because it functioned like a mirror.

Although it is quite common to speak of the moon shining, the truth is that this is inaccurate. The moon does not shine at all. It has no light of its own.

It's kind of like how we still continue to mention "the sunrise" even though we now know that its the earth turning on its axis, and not the sun that moves.

Here I ask a question.

Do you think our ancestors understood that during an eclipse our moon was in front of the Sun?

Do you think they understood that perhaps the moon didn’t shine? And infer that, any “shinning” at night must have come from the Greater light?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So are you backtracking now?

Huh?

What does Genesis 1:14 and 1:15 describe then, and is it still “factually” wrong?

Genesis 1:3 has light created on day one, while the stars, moon, and sun made on the fourth day in Genesis 1:14-17, but there WAS NO LIGHT BEFORE STARS BEGAN TO SHINE.

Do you think our ancestors understood that during an eclipse our moon was in front of the Sun?

I don't think scientists and historians are sure whether ancient civilizations fully understood, given that they had no concept of the moon orbiting the earth or the earth orbiting the sun. But this was not the main problem. The real trouble was that they did not understand an eclipse as a simple, physical occurrence. They attached supernatural ideas to it, such as it was a bad omen, or the will of a deity, or a battle between celestial beings.

What is absolutely astounding is that there remain some people even today in 2024 that still believe these things despite scientific knowledge.

Do you think they understood that perhaps the moon didn’t shine? And infer that, any “shinning” at night must have come from the Greater light?

No, they did not understand that the moon didn't shine. They saw the dimmer light coming from the moon, and assumed this light was generated by the moon.

 

[GoodAttention]

Huh?

Genesis 1:3 has light created on day one, while the stars, moon, and sun made on the fourth day in Genesis 1:14-17, but there WAS NO LIGHT BEFORE STARS BEGAN TO SHINE.

I disagree.

I read light was separated from darkness, remaining “with” the waters. Waters were separated from waters, giving us the lights (of water) in the sky, and waters (without light) on the ground.

I don't think scientists and historians are sure whether ancient civilizations fully understood, given that they had no concept of the moon orbiting the earth or the earth orbiting the sun. But this was not the main problem. The real trouble was that they did not understand an eclipse as a simple, physical occurrence. They attached supernatural ideas to it, such as it was a bad omen, or the will of a deity, or a battle between celestial beings.

What is absolutely astounding is that there remain some people even today in 2024 that still believe these things despite scientific knowledge.

No, they did not understand that the moon didn't shine. They saw the dimmer light coming from the moon, and assumed this light was generated by the moon.

The moon rises and sets also as the sun does, and the light that is visible from the moon changes every day.

Even a black moon is visible during its cycle, and there are days or nights when the moon can appear red, pink, or orange to the naked eye, in addition to white or grey.

I agree we don’t know what our ancestors thought, but they certainly observed the same as us, which is the appearance of the moon changes. Nevertheless the moon was still referred to as a “lessor light” even when it was known to become “dark”.


Thanks for your discussion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I disagree.

I'm sorry, but I think I have invested enough time and energy in this discussion. I stand by what I've said. I believe the scriptures I quoted support my position in a very OBVIOUS way. But of course, I can't control what you think.

Be well.

 

[GoodAttention]

I'm sorry, but I think I have invested enough time and energy in this discussion. I stand by what I've said. I believe the scriptures I quoted support my position in a very OBVIOUS way. But of course, I can't control what you think.

Be well.

No problem, thanks.

I’ll leave you with an article from 2023 I found interesting, hope you do too.

Earth's Water Is Officially Older Than the Sun. That's Incredible.

It reshapes our understanding of ... well, everything.

www.popularmechanics.com

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No problem, thanks.

I’ll leave you with an article from 2023 I found interesting, hope you do too.

Earth's Water Is Officially Older Than the Sun. That's Incredible.

It reshapes our understanding of ... well, everything.

www.popularmechanics.com

Yes, I do find these sort of things fascinating.

It's talking about the water in the cloud of debris that eventually formed our sun and planets. The sun formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago from a large, rotating cloud of gas and dust called a solar nebula, which collapsed under its own gravity, with most of the material pulled towards the center to form the Sun while the remaining material flattened into a disk that eventually formed the planets in our solar system. Basically, the material for our sun and earth came from the remnants of an earlier star going supernova.