Thread: How Do Stars Fall?

Originally Posted by juroara

I didnt dodge the question. I was asking you not to misquote the bible. since people are lazy they will not read the entire verse, only that mere sentance.
[/b]

That does not mean that is a misquote, it is a perfectly CORRECT quote.

Originally Posted by juroara

This is not how you intrepret the bible, anymore than how you would intrepret any other reading at school. Context matters.
[/b]

How does one interpret the bible? No one knows what it actually means. What makes your interpretation more right than the interpretation that the stars actually fell?

Originally Posted by juroara

This variation says "its light" for the moon, another says "her light". This variation says "from the sky", another variation says "from the heavens"
[/b]

This is irrelivant, there is no variation in the passage that we are discussing.

Originally Posted by juroara

I find your question as how to do stars 'fall' not relative. The real question is what does it mean.
[/b]

You may mean irrelivant, not relative.

Originally Posted by juroara

. . very. . . poetic! and when the bible is poetic, thats normally a clear sign to not take it so literally. Especially when the word 'like' is used. Even third graders know when the word 'like' is used it denotes METAPHOR.
[/b]

Well they are damn fucking stupid third graders, because 'like' denotes a simile.

Originally Posted by taihen

That does not mean that is a misquote, it is a perfectly CORRECT quote.
How does one interpret the bible? No one knows what it actually means. What makes your interpretation more right than the interpretation that the stars actually fell?
This is irrelivant, there is no variation in the passage that we are discussing.
You may mean irrelivant, not relative.
Well they are damn fucking stupid third graders, because 'like' denotes a simile.
[/b]

what is your deal? seriously?

If I quoted you saying

"Well they are damn fucking stupid" that is misquoting, becuase it is not showing to what you are talking about. I was talking to someone else, and also based on several posts showing a habit to show one little verse of the bible and not the context behind it.

Did I give MY intrepration? Where did I give MY intrepratation? I was giving you quotes from the bible and how the people who study the bible believe Jesus was quoting the old testiment. Then I gave you the quotes from the old testiment that it is believed Jesus was referring to. I'm not here to tell you how to intrepret the bible, but you still have to read it do that and recognize when the NT refers to the OT.

Those slight variations matter, but thats an entirely different topic outside of mainstream christianity. A slight variation of the word can change the entire meaning, or give a different take on it. What why would some variations refer to the moon as a she? Becuase it sounds pretty to be poetic? Or becuase the moon really does have a feminine spirit? And if the bible is inferring that the moon does have a feminine spirit, what does that say about the rest of the passage? That it is talking about the spirtual or the physical? If the moon is also a living spirit like angels, then she too must have Light like angels, an embodiment of light. Is the darkness in the passage than talking about physical or spiritual light? This is getting into new age and mystical beliefs. But there are mystical people today, who believe in Christ, who also feel the sun not only gives us physical but also spiritual light that energizes our spirits.

thanks for correcting me, point stands, the versus were poetic which tends to mean deeper meaning behind the words.

but stop being so anal and nit-picking and arguing for the sake of arguing.

Originally Posted by juroara

what is your deal? seriously?

If I quoted you saying

"Well they are damn fucking stupid" that is misquoting, becuase it is not showing to what you are talking about. I was talking to someone else, and also based on several posts showing a habit to show one little verse of the bible and not the context behind it.[/b]

Yes, you would be right, but in THIS INSTANCE and in the topic we are discussing (which is the literal interpretation of the bible) it is not a misquote. Other posts have nothing to do with this.

Originally Posted by juroara

Did I give MY intrepration? Where did I give MY intrepratation?
[/b]

Originally Posted by juroara

This is not how you intrepret the bible, anymore than how you would intrepret any other reading at school. Context matters.
[/b]

You told me how to interpret the Bible right there.

Originally Posted by juroara

Those slight variations matter, but thats an entirely different topic outside of mainstream christianity. A slight variation of the word can change the entire meaning, or give a different take on it. What why would some variations refer to the moon as a she? Becuase it sounds pretty to be poetic? Or becuase the moon really does have a feminine spirit? And if the bible is inferring that the moon does have a feminine spirit, what does that say about the rest of the passage? That it is talking about the spirtual or the physical? If the moon is also a living spirit like angels, then she too must have Light like angels, an embodiment of light. Is the darkness in the passage than talking about physical or spiritual light? This is getting into new age and mystical beliefs. But there are mystical people today, who believe in Christ, who also feel the sun not only gives us physical but also spiritual light that energizes our spirits.
[/b]

I believe I said that there are no accepted variations for this quote in the literal sense.

Originally Posted by juroara

thanks for correcting me, point stands, the versus were poetic which tends to mean deeper meaning behind the words.
[/b]

We could debate that, but I'll give you that as opinion.

Originally Posted by juroara

but stop being so anal and nit-picking and arguing for the sake of arguing.
[/b]

Character assasination, that's great. Are you that desparate that you'd resort to insulting me personally to try and make me argument seem less plausible? Or maybe you are just running out of things to say? Either way, its pathetic, really, and only shows that you are desparate to score a point somewhere.

You will notice I never insulted your character even once.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have no more interest in continuing this until you resort to slinging insults at me, so I am off to bed to LUCID DREAM, what we came here to do at the first place.

even though i am not Christian, actually i am a strong atheist, i think that he might well have been descibing shooting stars the best way he could, especially if one actually hit the ground and he saw it( shooting starts burn up but im saying a meteor hitting the ground). Would shake the Earth and be quite bright i would imagine.

Though the atheist arguement that he believed that stars could fall from the sky, making it seem that the stars we see at nighr are all inside our gravitational pull, which is impossible does hold merit aswell.

I would say it could have been either one really. I could be him describing meteors in his own words or it could be the fact that they had haerdly any idea of what stars were in those times and so it proves the bible is written soley by man and so is often incorrect when it comes to events like stars dieing, earthquakes, lightening etc.

Take it as you see fit, ill go with the atheist view point because i am atheist, but whatever. Just stop sending any kind of religious people to my door at 9oam on a saturday morning or when im in the shower and your fine

Omg can i just share an experience thats really funny to me. It's 11:00am on saturday and im in the shower( 11:00am is actually very early for me on a saturday or sunday, usually its 1:30pm) and i hear a knock at the door. I get out of the shower, grab a towel n run downstairs. I open the door to two women carrying bibles, one quite old, like 70ish and one around 40. The 70ish one is by far the leader of the two and is the one doing the talking. She looks suprised when i open the door clutching a towel around me . So she says

" I can see this is a bad time" older one
" Yes it is" me
...about 10 seconds passes
" So are you religious?" she says
" no..." i reply
" but i do attend a religious school because of a science place and so know what Christianity is all about"
" ok then..but are you sure you truly understand God?" ( me saying i experience christianity has obviously broken her usual way of intoducing Christianity)
" Yes i have learnt all i need to know really, and i chose to be atheist"( she looks a tad shocked)
" Well i suppose but you should really read the bible again and read these( she hands me four leaflets)"
" Yeah....sure i will"
..another 10 second silence
" Ok well, im going to get back in my shower now.."
" Ok, thankyou for your time, i do hopse you find religion", they leave

I just found it really funny

"Devil's Advocate Heeere!!" :

Like many translations of the bible, this one is meant to be taken in context. The same way we call pieces of rock that burn up through our atmosphere upon entry into our world "shooting stars" is the same way people 3000 years ago explained the phenomenon of such an event.

Perhaps this is a premonition of a universal event that will change the face of the earth forever.

Originally Posted by taihen

Yes, you would be right, but in THIS INSTANCE and in the topic we are discussing (which is the literal interpretation of the bible) it is not a misquote. Other posts have nothing to do with this.
You told me how to interpret the Bible right there.
I believe I said that there are no accepted variations for this quote in the literal sense.
We could debate that, but I'll give you that as opinion.
Character assasination, that's great. Are you that desparate that you'd resort to insulting me personally to try and make me argument seem less plausible? Or maybe you are just running out of things to say? Either way, its pathetic, really, and only shows that you are desparate to score a point somewhere.

You will notice I never insulted your character even once.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have no more interest in continuing this until you resort to slinging insults at me, so I am off to bed to LUCID DREAM, what we came here to do at the first place.
[/b]

I was telling you how you were behaving in my eyes. I didnt mean to insult you or your character.

For example - I was talking about how we learn to understand text from reading class. How we have to look at the entire context of a paragraph sometimes to understand the real meaning of a sentance. I was using this as an example of misquoting, in the same way that newspapers misquote people by not telling us what they were talking about. I do still find this thread a 'misquote' becuase it does not show us the rest of the passage or to what the passage was referring to. Which makes the question "how do stars fall?" misleading in my opinion. Since without the rest of the context how can we answer without first establishing if this text is meant to be taken literal or not?

I wasn't telling you a certain way in which how to intrepret the bible. This is how we learn to understand a reading, this is how we learn to READ. The intrepretaion of the passage was still up in the air and even I admitted I did not know how to intrepret this passage! Yet, you felt the need to argue that I was telling you how to intrepret the bible or that my intrepretation *which I never gave* might not be right. Thats why I called you nitpicky. You just seem to be taking every little thing I say, and twist it so that you can argue against it for the sake of arguing. In fact, I dont even understand why you are trying to argue against me since I havent posted my personal understanding of this verse, and only gave you quotes of the bible?

Do we, or do we not learn in english or reading class to read with the context in mind?

Ok I think juroara was right rather than me, it does seem like it meant that the stars turned dark like the sun and moon. That makes more sense.

lol.

Either god is lying, since it weren't stars, but meteors that probably were described. Or, big surprise, people that had no divine knowledge and inspiration wrote the bible.

Originally Posted by juroara

I didnt dodge the question. I was asking you not to misquote the bible. [/b]

I didn't misquote the Bible. I very carefully typed the exact quote and provided a link. I also challenge you to read whatever you have to in Matthew and tell me what you think it means. Do your best.

Originally Posted by juroara

there are many slight variations, which matter apparently since you are being anal over a single word[/b]

It is amazing how defensive people get over simple questions. I see it as a sign of doubt. If you saw paradoxes and contradictions in math and asked me how one could make sense of the math, I would find your questions interesting and give you the best answers I could. Especially if math were my religion, I would be honored and glad that you were trying to understand it. If I bitched at you for asking me the questions, it would mean I have major doubts about the math principles I am teaching and that I don't have good answers to your questions. I can see it now... Student: "Why is it that you can divide by every number but zero? It seems like if you can divide by all other numbers, you could divide by zero. I don't understand." Teacher: "Screw you! You are so anal for asking that! Stop persecuting me! I'm being repressed!"

Originally Posted by juroara

Or, big surprise, people that had no divine knowledge and inspiration wrote the bible.
[/b]

That is starting to be my guess.

im sorry. you just didnt come off as having an earnest question over the bible. you came off as using how something was worded to show falseness in the bible. I already read what I needed to read and I posted the quotes that is believed Jesus was referring to. I was hoping to illustrate why the question how does a star fall doesnt matter when you havent first established to what the star is being referred to. Stars as we know it, or something it?

I dont have to answer your direct question. Nor do I care to. Ive already said this and I'll say it again. I am not a bible-believing christian. My beliefs concerning the second coming *including tribulation of what that verse was concerning* are entirely different, and they are not based on the bible solely. So I simply dont care to decide what exactly does verse for verse mean in the bible. The only thing I will say is I dont feel the verse was meant to be taken so literally

Originally Posted by joey11223

hmm, obviously this was ment for simple minded people to grasp...
[/b]

Just like the rest of the Bible.

Originally Posted by juroara

im sorry. you just didnt come off as having an earnest question over the bible. you came off as using how something was worded to show falseness in the bible. [/b]

If I just wanted to be a jerk I would say, "Ha ha, that's so stupid! I proved it. I don't want to know what you have to say. Ha ha!" Instead, I say things like, "This seems illogical to me, but I am trying to understand the views you come here to discuss. Will you explain this?" I really do want to know answers to the questions I ask.

Originally Posted by joey11223

" I can see this is a bad time" older one
" Yes it is" me
...about 10 seconds passes
" So are you religious?" she says
[/b]

I find this hilarious. I suppose this dialogue shows exactly why people get so annoyed with Christians in particular.

I had an experience like this from Jehovah's Witnesses, which I actually respect because they are not hypocritical. They take the Bible literally and do everything it says, even if it doesn't make sense. At least they are not lying.

Anyway, my friend and I were crashing at my house after a huge bender the night before, and early in the morning some proselytisers arrive at my gate. Naturally, I am still partially pissed from the night before, and we bring out the camera. My friends all know me as this religious debater, so they were trying to keep themselves for packing out laughing. I also brought out my two bibles.

JW: "Oh, you have read the bible?"
Me: "Yes I have, and I own two."
JW: "Would you please read for me chapter..."
I read it and discuss the text.
JW: "Wow, its so great so see a Christian studying the Bible these days. Most of them just go out and get drunk and don't read the Bible like you"
My friends can't help snickering.
Me: "No, I'm sorry, you may have misunderstood me, I am an Atheist"

Cheap NIV: 50 ZAR
Cheap KJV: 20 ZAR
Look on that lady's face: Priceless.

Originally Posted by Universal

If the Bible is the word of God or even just divinely inspired, Matthew could have explained what meteorites are. Instead, he used a word that means something totally different. I know that we call meteorites "shooting stars", but that is metaphoric and not misleading because people with basic scientific knowledge know it is a metaphor. That is not the case with the Bible. When it was written, everybody thought "shooting stars" really were stars. If the Bible says "stars" and doesn't even specify them as "shooting stars", it seems to be suggesting that stars really do fall. What do you think?
[/b]

I don't think anyone knew what a meteor was back then.

My guess is that he had a vision, and what he really saw was meteors and had mistaken them for the stars in the sky falling to the planet.

Its probably not meant to be taken literally.. Like in Revelation everything has a different meaning.