Dear Dr. Heiser,
Until now I did not find a flaw to “debunk” what these two gentlemen (links below*) found in the astronomy software Stelarium about Revelation 12.
So I beg your help on that, and I think it will indeed interest you.
I am certain that your opinion about it would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Renan Rocha
Içara, Santa Catarina, Brazil
*
(short version): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkQuU2hRLLA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzOW68PTxVI
(longer version): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1y_hLqVXf4
MSH
on January 16, 2016 at 8:28 pm
A couple thoughts.
1. The view I argue for has been used in planetariums across the country for years.
2. I did watch the first minute of the “short” one, and can already say with confidence that the video is misguided. How? because I have a professional astronomer who has already looked at these “Rev 12 repeated” materials. The flaw in basically all of them is that they don’t look for enough detail in terms of what actually was in the sky at the birth event (as opposed to only the details of Rev 12). I have an astronomer who has evaluated these sorts of things who checks them for me. We’ve been over these scenarios, and he has shown me when the *precise* repetitions will re-occur (and 2017 isn’t it). I can’t say more due to the content of The Portent and other sequels.
I should add — as I’ve indicated before — that nothing in the NT calls for a repetition of the Rev 12 signs with respect to the second coming — zero. Nor is there an exegetical basis for presuming “the sign of the son of man” refers to Rev 12’s portents. So the whole enterprise lacks scriptural weight.
Dustin
on January 13, 2016 at 9:45 pm
Just downloaded the Bible Doctrine book…. wow! Love it!!
Matt
on January 14, 2016 at 6:08 am
Dr. Heiser,
Thanks for the heads up. The topics I read in the tables of contents are intriguing. I can’t wait to read these. I also noticed your book, “I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible”, is currently 99 cents on Kindle.
Dear Dr. Heiser,
Until now I did not find a flaw to “debunk” what these two gentlemen (links below*) found in the astronomy software Stelarium about Revelation 12.
So I beg your help on that, and I think it will indeed interest you.
I am certain that your opinion about it would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Renan Rocha
Içara, Santa Catarina, Brazil
*
(short version): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkQuU2hRLLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzOW68PTxVI
(longer version): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1y_hLqVXf4
A couple thoughts.
1. The view I argue for has been used in planetariums across the country for years.
2. I did watch the first minute of the “short” one, and can already say with confidence that the video is misguided. How? because I have a professional astronomer who has already looked at these “Rev 12 repeated” materials. The flaw in basically all of them is that they don’t look for enough detail in terms of what actually was in the sky at the birth event (as opposed to only the details of Rev 12). I have an astronomer who has evaluated these sorts of things who checks them for me. We’ve been over these scenarios, and he has shown me when the *precise* repetitions will re-occur (and 2017 isn’t it). I can’t say more due to the content of The Portent and other sequels.
I should add — as I’ve indicated before — that nothing in the NT calls for a repetition of the Rev 12 signs with respect to the second coming — zero. Nor is there an exegetical basis for presuming “the sign of the son of man” refers to Rev 12’s portents. So the whole enterprise lacks scriptural weight.
Just downloaded the Bible Doctrine book…. wow! Love it!!
Dr. Heiser,
Thanks for the heads up. The topics I read in the tables of contents are intriguing. I can’t wait to read these. I also noticed your book, “I Dare You Not to Bore Me with the Bible”, is currently 99 cents on Kindle.