"Solar Storm 2013"

[seanD]

Rev 16:8-10 "And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness"

2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

Since science has been going off the deep end of late, normally I would dismiss this as just more scientific dooms day quackery. But it almost seems too obvious to be the actual interpretation. Or is this just a coincidence?

"The problem is solar storms" figuring out how to predict them and stay safe from their effects," said ILWS chairperson Lika Guhathakurta from NASA's Headquarters in Washington, D.C. "We need to make progress on this before the next solar maximum arrives around 2013."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38310467...science-space/

[RBerman]

Let's revisit this in 2014. You are correct that this is not the proper interpretation of Revelation 16:8-10. I find it amusing that the overwhelming majority of doomsday theories put "the end" 2-5 years away. No one makes new predictions of apocalypse next month, or fifty years from now. It's always far enough off to not be immediately falsifiable, but close enough to motivate worried people.

[lilpixieofterror]

Solar storms can effect electronics and cause some inconvience and from what I can find, they did cause a natural gas pipe to explode in the 19th century and killed 500 people. This has been addressed and fixed, so you woun't have to worry about exploding gas pipes. Anyway, will the next solar maximum seriously effect us in 2013? Doubt it, in fact the sun increases its sunspot activity about every 11 years, so unless the world ended in 2001, 1990, etc I wouldn't be overly worried about it. Sounds like to me that some fruit loops couldn't take 15 minutes to read on sometime before they made wild predictions about stuff they don't understand.

[seanD]

Let's revisit this in 2014. You are correct that this is not the proper interpretation of Revelation 16:8-10. I find it amusing that the overwhelming majority of doomsday theories put "the end" 2-5 years away. No one makes new predictions of apocalypse next month, or fifty years from now. It's always far enough off to not be immediately falsifiable, but close enough to motivate worried people.

I would argue that we don't know for sure what the proper interpretation is. It could be interpreted a slew of ways. But putting the subject of what scientists themselves are predicting (it could be a solar flare 100 years from now for all we know), that's quite a claim on your part. I'm curious how you know this is not the "proper interpretation" of scripture, and on what authority do you claim this?

[RBerman]

I would argue that we don't know for sure what the proper interpretation is. It could be interpreted a slew of ways. But putting the subject of what scientists themselves are predicting (it could be a solar flare 100 years from now for all we know), that's quite a claim on your part. I'm curious how you know this is not the "proper interpretation" of scripture, and on what authority do you claim this?

Because I am smart. I will be happy to discuss this with you further in 2014.

[seanD]

Because I am smart. I will be happy to discuss this with you further in 2014.

It seems you’re hung up on the date 2013. Even if a solar flare never happens from now to that time, doesn’t mean the scriptures themselves aren’t indicative of some kind of solar activity. Forget about 2013, it could happen tomorrow or in 100 years. I’m asking you where you get the kind of the authority you just displayed in a rather arrogant way to dismiss it as the “proper interpretation”? Or do you mean that you just don’t believe it’s the proper interpretation? And if it's that's the case, then since you were obviously in error about Daniel, in spite of your mil doctrine, then why should I accept anything else you claim about interpretation of scripture?

[RBerman]

It seems you’re hung up on the date 2013. Even if a solar flare never happens from now to that time, doesn’t mean the scriptures themselves aren’t indicative of some kind of solar activity. Forget about 2013, it could happen tomorrow or in 100 years. I’m asking you where you get the kind of the authority you just displayed in a rather arrogant way to dismiss it as the “proper interpretation”? Or do you mean that you just don’t believe it’s the proper interpretation? And if it's that's the case, then since you were obviously in error about Daniel, in spite of your mil doctrine, then why should I accept anything else you claim about interpretation of scripture?

It should go without saying that anything I say is what I believe. I simply find it tedious to preface every comment with an explicit comment to that effect. Indeed, I was trained in writing class to avoid doing that very thing. I say what I believe, else I would say something else. I might be wrong. Use your own judgement. Caveat lector, and be careful about attributing motives.

[seanD]

It should go without saying that anything I say is what I believe. I simply find it tedious to preface every comment with an explicit comment to that effect. Indeed, I was trained in writing class to avoid doing that very thing. I say what I believe, else I would say something else. I might be wrong. Use your own judgement. Caveat lector, and be careful about attributing motives.

There is a note of distinction between "nothing will happen in 2013" and it’s "not the proper interpretation." If you had just indicated the former, would have been one thing. But when you throw down your authority and dismiss it as a “proper interpretation” is another. It just shows the kind of arrogance some of the preterists here have. And where I use to have respect for you, I've just been seeing some of the same type of arrogance. So since this religious arrogance has translated into obvious error in other discussions we've had on scripture, it would be very wise for me to pass on your authority of scripture interpretation.

[Rainbow Brite]

The problem is interpreting either literal or metaphor as convenient to support a doctrine. Like, the Temple in Olivet must mean the literal Second Temple, not a metaphorical and spiritual Temple of believers. But then, the sun in Revelation must be a metaphor of God's presence, and not literally the sun as a body in space.

Rather than being prudent to wonder, maybe some references are both literal and metaphorical, applied in different ways.

[RBerman]

There is a note of distinction between "nothing will happen in 2013" and it’s "not the proper interpretation." If you had just indicated the former, would have been one thing. But when you throw down your authority and dismiss it as a “proper interpretation” is another. It just shows the kind of arrogance some of the preterists here have. And where I use to have respect for you, I've just been seeing some of the same type of arrogance. So since this religious arrogance has translated into obvious error in other discussions we've had on scripture, it would be very wise for me to pass on your authority of scripture interpretation.

I would never have you take anything on my authority, for I have none. If you want to see increased solar activity as a fulfillment of Scriptures talking about the catastrophe that immediately precedes Christ's coming, go for it. People have been doing things like that for centuries.

[seanD]

I would never have you take anything on my authority, for I have none. If you want to see increased solar activity as a fulfillment of Scriptures talking about the catastrophe that immediately precedes Christ's coming, go for it. People have been doing things like that for centuries.

It seems you prefer a literal interpretation of scripture only when it's not inconvenient, especially when you're fervently (and rightly so) battling the pro-evo Christians in defense of Genesis. But then when it comes to eschatology, it suddenly gets allegorical. A rather strange inconsistency there, and if I were a pro-evo Christian, I'd consider it downright hypocritical.

I already know we're up a creek without a paddle because of the global economy and how its structured, which will probably have far more devastating effects, and that's primarily based on my research of how the economy works and what's been taking place. A potential solar flare is just the icing on the cake. It would be pretty coincidental to assume it's not a solar flare or some other type of solar activity, considering the timing. But do I know for sure this is the correct interpretation? No. I don't arrogantly insist on a proper way to interpret things like you and other preterists do.

[RBerman]

It seems you prefer a literal interpretation of scripture only when it's not inconvenient, especially when you're fervently (and rightly so) battling the pro-evo Christians in defense of Genesis. But then when it comes to eschatology, it suddenly gets allegorical. A rather strange inconsistency there, and if I were a pro-evo Christian, I'd consider it downright hypocritical.

Do you know how I would explain that distinction, or are you content to stop with the conclusion that I'm just hypocritical?

[Darfius]

It seems you prefer a literal interpretation of scripture only when it's not inconvenient, especially when you're fervently (and rightly so) battling the pro-evo Christians in defense of Genesis. But then when it comes to eschatology, it suddenly gets allegorical. A rather strange inconsistency there, and if I were a pro-evo Christian, I'd consider it downright hypocritical.

I already know we're up a creek without a paddle because of the global economy and how its structured, which will probably have far more devastating effects, and that's primarily based on my research of how the economy works and what's been taking place. A potential solar flare is just the icing on the cake. It would be pretty coincidental to assume it's not a solar flare or some other type of solar activity, considering the timing. But do I know for sure this is the correct interpretation? No. I don't arrogantly insist on a proper way to interpret things like you and other preterists do.

I hate to always sound so gushing over you, sean, and I certainly dread sounding condescending, but as usual, you are right on the money with this post (particularly with the inconsistency of RBerman and the other preterists here). I have myself entertained the idea that a solar flare could be the explanation for the intense heat, though I am not convinced.

The only place you and I appear to disagree is that you (if I understand you correctly) think a world government is coming about "accidentally", as it were. I, on the other hand, see clear evidence that it has been an orchestrated agenda for quite some time. Either way, I do not think it's an important difference, as the "endgame" remains the same.

[seanD]

The only place you and I appear to disagree is that you (if I understand you correctly) think a world government is coming about "accidentally", as it were. I, on the other hand, see clear evidence that it has been an orchestrated agenda for quite some time. Either way, I do not think it's an important difference, as the "endgame" remains the same.

Human accident, yes. Spiritual accident, no.

[seanD]

Do you know how I would explain that distinction, or are you content to stop with the conclusion that I'm just hypocritical?

Well, I'm guessing your argument is based on the fact that Rev clearly has symbolism in it. The problem is, where it's symbolism, an explanation is always given. Most of the assumed symbolism is not explained, thus we can only guess. Why would it all be just symbolism, yet only some of the book explained and the rest left for us to guess and argue over the hundreds of different interpretations?