Well, I’d say that we understand the behavior of stars pretty well, through the sciences of astronomy and astrophysics. We don’t understand the behavior of angels very well at all. Given that the Star of Bethlehem didn’t behave at all like we expect a physical star to behave, I’m going to go with the explanation that it was a supernatural apparition rather than a physical, material object.
Were there other words that the inspired authors could have used instead of ‘star’ to give that sentence that meaning?
If so - why didn’t they? or maybe they meant EXACTLY what they were inspired to write - after all - it was SUPPOSED to be a miraculous event, so why not have a ‘star’ do something it wouldn’t ever do normally?
Not exactly miraculous to have an angel lead them, is it?
Is the sentence mis-tranlated somehow? are there other translations for the root word that make it ‘obvious’ that a metaphoric and not actual star was meant here?
Surely they, as inspired authors, knew the difference between a ‘star’ and an ‘angel’?
So - all of that handwaving you’re doing is just that - handwaving - you refuse to accept the inspired words as written because they clearly can’t mean exactly what they wrote.
What if it was an Arcturan flying saucer? Is that more acceptable or less acceptable than “supernatural apparition”?
Revelation 12:4 and Isaiah 14:12 use ‘star’ to mean ‘angel’, so I don’t see the problem here.
Then it really doesn’t matter if it’s 3 wise men or 3 wise women, just as long as it’s Arcturan.
I guess Mary didn’t like the cornbread either.
You avoided the entire question - entirely - but anyway -
a) different authors - in the case of Isaiah, different languages -
b) different audiences
c) different contexts all around (revelation alone would be a ‘prophetic’ account, not a historical re-telling of an event)
In any event - not giving pre-post context to the verses - you didn’t either -
[QUOTE=Revelation 12:4 ]
Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born
[/QUOTE]
THat could quite literally be literal stars - got any context or other language that would state it ‘really means’ angels? I agree that in a plain reading (and given our understanding of the cosmos that nothing, let alone an actual (har!) dragon with a swipe of its tail could actually wipe literal stars from the sky- but you’re giving these inspired writers credit here) that its a metaphor for something - but ‘angels’ is not the only possibility here - maybe he meant asteroids?
In any event - we know what literal stars are - and since they can’t be literally wiped from the sky by a tail - we ASSUME he ‘must mean’ something else - maybe he didn’t?
[QUOTE=Isaiah 14:12]
How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
[/QUOTE]
He is talking about, apparently, some specific critter with a name of “morning star” - not a literal star - we all ‘agree’ that angels are in heaven - so he must be talking about a specific angel here. It’s also clearly poetic.
so - while you might show here that others used ‘star’ to mean angel (or a specific one) - neither quote shows thats what the author of Mathew meant.
Have a pleasant day.
What translation did you get that from? I ask because it’s a pretty famous verse, the only mention in the Bible of the name “Lucifer” (the King James Version starts off “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”).
Anyway, the verse is clearly talking about the King of Babylon, possibly Nebuchadnnezzar. It’s not talking about literal stars, but it’s also not talking about angels or Satan.
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the ground, O destroyer of nations. - NIV (from the top - not playing favorites).
Right - which is why I keep pleading with hector_st_clare to provide context or something else to back up all of the handwaving that is happening - there are scads/loads of contextual criticisim out there on the bible
- I could mention that the entire verse in question in Mathew states - “saw his star” - which really would not equate to being an ‘angel’ either. If hector_st_clare truly wanted to respond - they could bring up the simple quote from wiki -
“The Greek word in question is anatole, but its exact translation is unclear.” and then we could discuss Strong’s reference to it - Anatole Meaning - Greek Lexicon | New Testament (NAS)…
Instead - its a “it must mean angel becuase here’s two other verses that kinda sorta back that up even if they don’t and clearly it can’t mean what it says.” (all the while ignoring the contradiction that they place themselves under).
Which one brought Frankensteincense?
At the risk of being brief, can we not just agree that they followed what they thought was a star?:smack:
not very inspired…
We Three Kings of Orient are
Not quite sure this thing is a star
Poor of eyesight, walking all night
Gone way too fucking far
That was from the NIV.
RSV goes like
Darby and Douay-Rheims, not surprisingly, use “Lucifer.” Young’s Literal goes with “shining one.”
The general Christian reading of these verses is that Isaiah 14:12 is a reference to the fall of the Angel Lucifer, and that Revelation 12:4 is a reference to the fall of the rebel angels.
As for the Book of Revelation, it’s meant as sort of a panorama of sacred history, so yes, although it (presumably) includes reference to some future events, it also includes references to some past events. In particular, Revelation 12 is (in parts) talking about the War in Heaven.
and in neither response do you show your work… or even address the points raised.
“general christian” has nothing to do with what the author of Isiah wrote - its a later interpetation and is basically, again - a handwave to avoid what it actually says or means. (or more likely in this case, to make it mean something else)
As for the author of Revelation -
[QUOTE=John @ Revelation 1 ]
1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants** what must soon take place.** He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it,** because the time is near**.
[/QUOTE]
None of which says “its a mismash of both” - it clearly states that its ALL about FUTURE events.
Unless you’re attempting to say that some of its been fullfilled, and other parts not - in which case SHOW YOUR WORK.
“its meant as” - c’mon - atleast try.
show your work, provide some form of citation or something to back up your claims.
Indeed. The verse is clearly adressing the king of Babylon, recently defeated by the Assyrians, not Satan.
Does it help or hinder to point out that many theologians (including Luther) wouldn’t have Revelation in the canon and as such it’s not considered God breathed.
Neither in this specific argument - as hector_st_clare believes the entire bible is ‘inspired’ and hasn’t raised that point - they are trying to use revelation to prove that ‘star==angel’ in mathew - which is aside from the point of its canonical acceptance…