Animals in heaven. I remember when that topic made its way around the fellowships. One school of thought was based on the 3-fold nature of man (ie: no spirit= no place in heaven.) The opposing school of thought was that God would allow them in because He knew they would "bless us"..... St. Peter's pit bull with a Super Duper Pooper Scooper..... Now that's a sight I'd like to see.
Sheesh, I thought you meant the witness of stars like...Michael Jordan, or something.
On the subject of animals in heaven, I doubt it.
One thing I think of is that as fetuses we had no idea of what bigger thing was available to us and (to the extent that fetuses think) we probably enjoyed playing with our umbilical cords and would have decided that we weren't leaving home without them.
The we got born and learned about cats and dogs and horses and other critters.
So who knows what we might find to play with in heaven. One of those things from Ezekiel 1 maybe. Terrifying.
Yeah, but if we all believed that, there wouldn't be anything to argue about. And where would be the fun in that? :-)
Back on topic...I haven't read Bullinger's work, but I find the field of biblical astronomy interesting. I wonder how it might relate to the current fascination with the Mayan calendar. Anyone got any insights on connections between the Mayans and the Zoroastrians and other ancient sages?
If the gospel in the stars message was given to Adam and Eve before the Fall, it makes God's original command meaningless to them because their sin was inevitable. Why even bother to command it? Why even bother to try to obey it? The history is already set out, and they never had a chance. This would have been a terrible blow to their morale. It would have seemed like bad news to them, not good news.
Bullinger may have seen the problem of such deterministic fatalism. Although his GIS theory does not avoid getting caught by its consequences, he does state, "These pictures were designed to preserve, expound, and perpetuate the one first great promise and prophecy of Gen. iii. 15 [after the Fall], that all hope for Man, all hope for Creation, was bound up in a coming Redeemer...."24 "Adam, who first heard that wondrous promise, repeated it, and gave it to his posterity as a most precious heritage."25 Bullinger knew Seiss's work, but it is not clear if by such statements Bullinger meant to refute Seiss's belief that Adam had the gospel in the stars before the Fall, or if Bullinger was merely anchoring what he believed Adam had been told by God before the Fall to a biblical text given after the Fall.
Another basic flaw in GIS theory is its confusion of the theological categories of special revelation and general revelation, resulting in an inappropriate attribution of moral authority to nature. This confusion is evident through the language that GIS advocates use, such as when Bullinger states that the heavens "prophesy" God's purposes and counsels,26 or when Seiss writes that the Magi "never could have understood as they did" how to find Jesus, "if there had not been associated with the stars some definite evangelic prophecies and promises which they could read, and believed to be from God."27 This confusion is also exemplified when Fleming speaks of the "prophetic outline" of the 12 signs,28 and when Hickey states, "The reason God placed stars and planets in the heavens was to reveal knowledge about His Son, Jesus Christ."29
GIS teachers, here, are making general revelation (nature) function as special revelation (God's redemptive interventions through word and deed in history, especially in Christ and the Bible ). While general revelation does impart some knowledge of the existence, attributes, and law of God and therefore does have moral authority (Rom. 1:19–21; 2:14–15), it does not reveal anything about the Incarnation or salvation. The Bible is the source of authority for that. As has often been said, nature reveals enough to condemn you but not enough to save you.
...GIS teachers, here, are making general revelation (nature) function as special revelation (God's redemptive interventions through word and deed in history, especially in Christ and the Bible ). While general revelation does impart some knowledge of the existence, attributes, and law of God and therefore does have moral authority (Rom. 1:19–21; 2:14–15), it does not reveal anything about the Incarnation or salvation.
Says who? I mean, who decides what level of revelation God can give through nature? Sounds like TWI style hair-splitting to me.
Says who? I mean, who decides what level of revelation God can give through nature? Sounds like TWI style hair-splitting to me.
It is just another perspective. . . . thought I would offer it up for consideration. I guess whoever wrote the article said that.....hope you got to read the whole thing if you were interested.
Geisha, thanks for the link/article from CRI - he makes a few good points
i use to really get into Bullinger's Witness of the Stars - but that and some of his other stuff i just don't look at that much any more.
i became somewhat disenchanted with Bullinger when someone pointed out on one of those threads dealing with the errors in PFAL, the picture of five crucifixes that Bullinger used in his Companion Bible [to prove there were four crucified with Jesus] was not an altar but a cemetery...between that and his complex development of numbers in scripture i sometimes wonder if the guy just got into an over-thinking mode one too many times - or maybe it's just my being easily confused [math wasn't my best subject in school ].... i still like his Companion Bible, How to Enjoy the Bible and Figures of Speech but now enjoy them with a bigger grain of salt.....like Waysider was saying - maybe it falls into the Da Vinci Code/Secret Knowledge file.
this has been an interesting thread - i just haven't had anything to contribute yet - but in thinking about this discussion and looking through a few Bible encyclopedias and dictionaries i have - i just don't see much concern or interest by the ancient Hebrews over the constellations or astronomy in general. plus the fact that they were forbidden to look to the stars for guidance or information like other cultures did makes me think that as a general rule it was not even fodder for speculative theology.
another thing that bugs me is the "plastic" or malleable nature of the constellations- the way the pattern or image is defined is a matter of perception - was it some ancient form of an ink-blot test? .....i'm not big on astrology, astronomy, constellations or anything - but, the images do date back to mythologies of ancient cultures. folks studying the sky noticed some groups of stars stuck together as they moved across the night.naming them and coming up with a way to identify a particular group by associating them with an image seems like a natural thing to do.
~~~
here's the last thing and then i'll shut up - i think it's challenging enough to nail down something definitive on certain subjects in the Bible because of the distance in time, culture, languages, as well as consideration of whether the reference is literal, figurative, symbolic, etc. - and that is a WRITTEN document and not something as subjective as an abstract image.
but given the limitations of language and the written word - i think in general it's perhaps a better means of communication than just images.....someone totally unfamiliar with the gospel accounts of the resurrection and Jesus' appearances afterward - would not have a clue about the significance behind a painting of Jesus appearing to two disciples on the road to Emmaus. it just looks like three people out for a stroll - - and none of them have an iPhone - - so how could they be communicating about anything significant anyway :( ...... But for many Christians the painting evokes feelings of joy and wonder.
i guess a Bible with God-breathed photographs, pie charts, diagrams and index would be ideal....probably cost an arm and a leg though
If the constellations gave Adam and Eve the bible at that time, how would that have been possible. Stars would have moved distorting the constellations. For example this is how the big dipper has distorted by stellar motion and what it would have looked like in the past:
So-crates, you reminded me of one of the many interesting things i learned awhile back at the McDonald Observatory in the Davis Mountains of west Texas. Our family enjoyed a great tourist attraction there - a star party .
The guy giving the talk had the most powerful laser pointer i've ever seen - he even joked about using it as a laser marker to call in an air-strike or something....anyway we had no problem following what star he was pointing out...and along the lines of what you were saying about the changing constellations - he said that in the precession of the equinoxes, the role of North Star passes from one particular star to another one.
Currently the North Star is Polaris....but around the time that the pyramids were built, Thuban in the constellation Draco was the North Star.
How do we know Adam and Eve gave any special thought to the meaning of the constellations?
I mean, they probably looked up and said stuff like, "Wow that's bright!" and stuff like that but, let's face it---they were naked as a jaybird.----know what I mean?
As far as the "star pictures" are concerned: from page 17.
"There is nothing in the groups of stars to even suggest the figures. this is the first thing which is noticed by every one who looks at the constellations. Take for example the sign of Virgo, and look at the stars. There is nothing whatever to suggest a human form; still less is there anything to show whether that form is a man or a woman. And so with all the others."
Recommended Posts
waysider
It was like The Da Vinci Code for its day and time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
perhaps. :)
my first thought though is..
if there is no room on the "ship" for the cats in my house, I'm not going.
people can be soooo damned arrogant at times..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Animals in heaven. I remember when that topic made its way around the fellowships. One school of thought was based on the 3-fold nature of man (ie: no spirit= no place in heaven.) The opposing school of thought was that God would allow them in because He knew they would "bless us"..... St. Peter's pit bull with a Super Duper Pooper Scooper..... Now that's a sight I'd like to see.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I loved that link..
I still have a problem with human arrogance..
*they* (the animals) are under our authority..
how many ships could sport the presence of mighty battle cats..
hurray, hurry hurry. be among the first, the few, the chosen..
I've met christians who think they will have panthers at their side..
where are they going to come from?
the small inconvenience of having a cat (or even human for that matter..) potty box on the ship would be a small price to pay..
lest you think I am derailing my vewy own thread.
The Creator chose to use the names of some of these animals in the stars..
if you think the maintenance of a cat on a voyage to be unacceptable.. us humans are far, far more "messy"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ursa Major and Ursa Minor
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
sheesh. It looks like a Squirrel..
a Squirrel.. vs an amoebae..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Study Corona, that is about that life I have been trying to tell people about; I have this link in over 150 forums
http://thatlifeyahwehhas.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2011-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2012-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=12
trying to tell people about that life, study Corona, it is about that life Yeshua got, same life we are going to get, that life is cool stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Sheesh, I thought you meant the witness of stars like...Michael Jordan, or something.
On the subject of animals in heaven, I doubt it.
One thing I think of is that as fetuses we had no idea of what bigger thing was available to us and (to the extent that fetuses think) we probably enjoyed playing with our umbilical cords and would have decided that we weren't leaving home without them.
The we got born and learned about cats and dogs and horses and other critters.
So who knows what we might find to play with in heaven. One of those things from Ezekiel 1 maybe. Terrifying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I believe that everything you see is a reflection of what you are inside,
looking at the unseen by way of what is seen,
not parallel, but left is right and right is left, neither being wrong.
Not that what we see isn't real, but also, who we are is even more then seen.
As there are things we haven't seen, even so there those same things in us.
The deity is closer then we may think.
I've come to the point of not looking at outside sources alone, to define anything,
even more-so, both that is in us, and with us, are intertwined, indefinitely and unlimited.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
@ CMan
Yeah, but if we all believed that, there wouldn't be anything to argue about. And where would be the fun in that? :-)
Back on topic...I haven't read Bullinger's work, but I find the field of biblical astronomy interesting. I wonder how it might relate to the current fascination with the Mayan calendar. Anyone got any insights on connections between the Mayans and the Zoroastrians and other ancient sages?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Here is an article with a different perspective on the subject....from CRI Christian Research Institute ..... kind of make one go
or not. :)
http://www.equip.org...hristian-zodiac
If the gospel in the stars message was given to Adam and Eve before the Fall, it makes God's original command meaningless to them because their sin was inevitable. Why even bother to command it? Why even bother to try to obey it? The history is already set out, and they never had a chance. This would have been a terrible blow to their morale. It would have seemed like bad news to them, not good news.
Bullinger may have seen the problem of such deterministic fatalism. Although his GIS theory does not avoid getting caught by its consequences, he does state, "These pictures were designed to preserve, expound, and perpetuate the one first great promise and prophecy of Gen. iii. 15 [after the Fall], that all hope for Man, all hope for Creation, was bound up in a coming Redeemer...."24 "Adam, who first heard that wondrous promise, repeated it, and gave it to his posterity as a most precious heritage."25 Bullinger knew Seiss's work, but it is not clear if by such statements Bullinger meant to refute Seiss's belief that Adam had the gospel in the stars before the Fall, or if Bullinger was merely anchoring what he believed Adam had been told by God before the Fall to a biblical text given after the Fall.
Another basic flaw in GIS theory is its confusion of the theological categories of special revelation and general revelation, resulting in an inappropriate attribution of moral authority to nature. This confusion is evident through the language that GIS advocates use, such as when Bullinger states that the heavens "prophesy" God's purposes and counsels,26 or when Seiss writes that the Magi "never could have understood as they did" how to find Jesus, "if there had not been associated with the stars some definite evangelic prophecies and promises which they could read, and believed to be from God."27 This confusion is also exemplified when Fleming speaks of the "prophetic outline" of the 12 signs,28 and when Hickey states, "The reason God placed stars and planets in the heavens was to reveal knowledge about His Son, Jesus Christ."29
GIS teachers, here, are making general revelation (nature) function as special revelation (God's redemptive interventions through word and deed in history, especially in Christ and the Bible ). While general revelation does impart some knowledge of the existence, attributes, and law of God and therefore does have moral authority (Rom. 1:19–21; 2:14–15), it does not reveal anything about the Incarnation or salvation. The Bible is the source of authority for that. As has often been said, nature reveals enough to condemn you but not enough to save you.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Says who? I mean, who decides what level of revelation God can give through nature? Sounds like TWI style hair-splitting to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What happens to people who can't read?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
It is just another perspective. . . . thought I would offer it up for consideration. I guess whoever wrote the article said that.....hope you got to read the whole thing if you were interested.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Geisha, thanks for the link/article from CRI - he makes a few good points
i use to really get into Bullinger's Witness of the Stars - but that and some of his other stuff i just don't look at that much any more.
i became somewhat disenchanted with Bullinger when someone pointed out on one of those threads dealing with the errors in PFAL, the picture of five crucifixes that Bullinger used in his Companion Bible [to prove there were four crucified with Jesus] was not an altar but a cemetery...between that and his complex development of numbers in scripture i sometimes wonder if the guy just got into an over-thinking mode one too many times - or maybe it's just my being easily confused [math wasn't my best subject in school
].... i still like his Companion Bible, How to Enjoy the Bible and Figures of Speech but now enjoy them with a bigger grain of salt.....like Waysider was saying - maybe it falls into the Da Vinci Code/Secret Knowledge file.
this has been an interesting thread - i just haven't had anything to contribute yet - but in thinking about this discussion and looking through a few Bible encyclopedias and dictionaries i have - i just don't see much concern or interest by the ancient Hebrews over the constellations or astronomy in general. plus the fact that they were forbidden to look to the stars for guidance or information like other cultures did makes me think that as a general rule it was not even fodder for speculative theology.
another thing that bugs me is the "plastic" or malleable nature of the constellations- the way the pattern or image is defined is a matter of perception - was it some ancient form of an ink-blot test?
.....i'm not big on astrology, astronomy, constellations or anything - but, the images do date back to mythologies of ancient cultures. folks studying the sky noticed some groups of stars stuck together as they moved across the night.naming them and coming up with a way to identify a particular group by associating them with an image seems like a natural thing to do.
~~~
here's the last thing and then i'll shut up - i think it's challenging enough to nail down something definitive on certain subjects in the Bible because of the distance in time, culture, languages, as well as consideration of whether the reference is literal, figurative, symbolic, etc. - and that is a WRITTEN document and not something as subjective as an abstract image.
but given the limitations of language and the written word - i think in general it's perhaps a better means of communication than just images.....someone totally unfamiliar with the gospel accounts of the resurrection and Jesus' appearances afterward - would not have a clue about the significance behind a painting of Jesus appearing to two disciples on the road to Emmaus. it just looks like three people out for a stroll - - and none of them have an iPhone - - so how could they be communicating about anything significant anyway :( ...... But for many Christians the painting evokes feelings of joy and wonder.
i guess a Bible with God-breathed photographs, pie charts, diagrams and index would be ideal....probably cost an arm and a leg though
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Here's a thought:
If the constellations gave Adam and Eve the bible at that time, how would that have been possible. Stars would have moved distorting the constellations. For example this is how the big dipper has distorted by stellar motion and what it would have looked like in the past:
(source)
Are we sure the constellations we see today are the same ones Adam and Eve saw?
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
How do we know Adam and Eve gave any special thought to the meaning of the constellations?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
So-crates, you reminded me of one of the many interesting things i learned awhile back at the McDonald Observatory in the Davis Mountains of west Texas. Our family enjoyed a great tourist attraction there - a star party .
The guy giving the talk had the most powerful laser pointer i've ever seen - he even joked about using it as a laser marker to call in an air-strike or something....anyway we had no problem following what star he was pointing out...and along the lines of what you were saying about the changing constellations - he said that in the precession of the equinoxes, the role of North Star passes from one particular star to another one.
Currently the North Star is Polaris....but around the time that the pyramids were built, Thuban in the constellation Draco was the North Star.
http://www.britannic...stronomical-map
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I mean, they probably looked up and said stuff like, "Wow that's bright!" and stuff like that but, let's face it---they were naked as a jaybird.----know what I mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
sometimes, they enjoy the pictures that illustrate the text..
Bullinger does have a lot of nice pictures.
plus he cites his sources. Rolleston, Seiss, Kinns..
this seems to be the "softest" work by Bullinger.
page iv..
he leaves it up to the reader to judge how far his conclusions are borne out of the evidence..
to me that seems reasonable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Some might consider some of Bullinger's structures contrived..
but what he does with Psalm 19 on Pages 2-6 is impressive..
of course the vicster greatly plagiarized this in the CFAS class..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
As far as the "star pictures" are concerned: from page 17.
"There is nothing in the groups of stars to even suggest the figures. this is the first thing which is noticed by every one who looks at the constellations. Take for example the sign of Virgo, and look at the stars. There is nothing whatever to suggest a human form; still less is there anything to show whether that form is a man or a woman. And so with all the others."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
My point was he was still going by the constellations we view. Fifty thousand years ago, those consellations didn't exist in their present form.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Orion is "easy". The three stars in his belt. easy to find.
but Argo is on page 157. Close to the end of the book..
The return of the great emigrant-ship..
but still.. even 50,000 years ago, there would be nothing in the named stars to suggest any kind of form..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.