Interesting web - page of the Bible in the Stars - Page 2

dr. farr · #26 11-23-2011, 06:33 AM

You've given me yet another nickname, "Dr Anarchy!"

JUPITERASC · #27 11-23-2011, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr. farr

You've given me yet another nickname, "Dr Anarchy!"

Notice any significant transits to your Asc/MC indicating the conferring of such an honour? Wonders what's cooking in the lab... lights blue touch-paper and retires three billion light years away to the most distant known constellation
seriously dr. farr you're a star, dialogue with you, despite being inevitably educational, is fortunately great fun

Caprising · #28 11-23-2011, 06:33 PM

Thanks for the math doctorFarr, I can't see any other planetary influence around the 1500s that could explain the sudden advancement of the human mind, Uranus energy fits well, so the orb would then be around 5-6 degrees approaching using the year 1500 as a starting point. Maybe the stellium of planets in Aquarius in the 60s was the start of the age!
JupiterAscendant, how would you explain the technological revolution that has occurred over the last 500 years using the sidereal constellations?

piercethevale · #29 11-25-2011, 06:51 AM

I'm sorry I even posted the link to the page that I did. As I finally found the time to really look it over I discovered that it wasn't at all anything as I thought it to be.
Regardless of that...as I did start this thread and it has taken a diversion into areas of a contentious nature I am obligated to state my own opinions [to me, conclusions...but, out of respect I state them as to be my humble opinions].
The Hebrews never specifically named the components [stars]of the constellations. [I've already made two very long winded overly written and rambling discourses on this in the threads started by the member that calls them self 'Monk'...and you can read them {the two are nearly identical} in those threads if you have any inclination to. I did state that there in fact are no Stars ever specifically named but earlier today someone I know gave me cause to possibly consider I may be in error as to that but I'm pretty confident that I was correct in what I already wrote and stated in those other threads.
I believe in the system of 'Tropical Astrology' because I've seen and had demonstrated to me countless times that the Tropical System does work and is correct and for which cause I have to believe it is the correct method. But I have not seen or heard a single bit of evidence that the system 'Sidereal Astrology' does.
For many years now, I've looked at charts I have produced for events and births of famous and well known people over the centuries [besides this one] and have seen evidence that the influences and attributes of the Signs are right were they were in Yeshua/Jesus', time right up to this present time and that the influences of the precepts represented by the Sabian Symbols are in adherence to the system of Tropical as well for that span of time.
Thus I concluded [and I don't understand why it is so difficult for some others to see] that the Stars aren't the influence.
If you believe they are, then tell me, is it that the force of influence is in the light that is shone itself?..If so, explain to me. We know today that some of those very stars are far closer than others. Some are a few light years away...and others up to billions of light years away., and as the speed of light is pretty much a constant then how do you explain the difference in distance and time traveled as to their being in unison to an affect?
The only possible counter to that objection is that there is are influences that follow the same direction as their lights but travel at an inestimable speed that is far beyond the speed of light. And to that I have to counter...those lights aren't were those stars are any more...in fact some haven't been in those places for billions of years...and in fact as the stars are all of different distances God only knows where those stars might be presently in space [and whether they even still exist as some have collapsed, gone nova, etc...or to put it simply...they have disappeared] and in spatial relationship to one another at this time.

So, to tell me that Fixed Stars are of serious Astrological consideration is in my humble opinion, [of course

] pure 'Hogwash'.
Those that insist they can demonstrate to the contrary are seeing only what they want to see...as I can point to dozens more that could just as easily be 'proven' to be that same influence...but the fact of the matter remains the same...they aren't of influence as I explained, because why they're not, in that which I wrote at the beginning of my post here.

It ain't the Stars Kids...!
...IMHO...Of Course

piercethevale · #30 11-25-2011, 09:51 AM

Okay...so i need to retract a tad here.
Apparently the Rabbi Dobin did mention of some instances that "Stars by name" is found in the Tankh. [but, I couldn't find anything else in his book about this matter pertaining to which stars are mentioned and how are they so 'named'?
Here's what the Rabbi wrote at the start of chapter 9.
[Quote,Rabbi Dobin, "Kabbalistic Astrology"] "In the total Hebrew Scripture, there are 23,144 verses. Of these verses, 866 or 3.74 percent, refer to one or more of the following: Heavens, Sun, Moon, Stars, lights, constellations [the word], constellations [by name], Hosts of Heaven, Stars by name, planets by name. In the following analysis, I deal only with the number of verses in the Bible, and not with wordrepetitions. For instance in Job 9:9there are references to Orion, the Pleiades, Ursus, and the three winter constellations of the Zodiac, and one might logically count these as six instances, but I will count this verse as only once. as you can see, I am being most conservative.
Of these verses, only 222 refer to these heavenly phenomena as natural phenomena in their natural setting. Fully 74 percent of these verses, 644 in all, refer to these heavenly bodies as being directly involved in making manifest the will of God either as omens, as witness, or as active agents. In other words, 3.74 percent of the total is devoted to the heavens and its contents, and 2.78 percent of the Bible tells us that the heavens and their contents are the active participants, under Gods control, in the lives and the destinies of humanity on Earth." [unquote]

I haven't found any where in the Rabbis' book that mentions what Stars are specifically named. It seems apparent that a very few 'Stars' were named and in addition to the fact that the Rabbi Dobin never mentions them and doesn't bring up that subject again ... I would have to say that the 'Fixed Stars' were not [and, are not presently, either.] regarded to be and were not recognized as "Active Agents."
If anyone knows which 'Stars' are mentioned in the Tankh ,or Old testament if you prefer, by specific name and can also tell me where, both citing chapter and verse...I will be most grateful.
Thank you...ptv

JUPITERASC · #31 11-26-2011, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercethevale

....[and I don't understand why it is so difficult for some others to see] that the Stars aren't the influence.
If you believe they are, then tell me, is it that the force of influence is in the light that is shone itself?..If so, explain to me. We know today that some of those very stars are far closer than others. Some are a few light years away...and others up to billions of light years away., and as the speed of light is pretty much a constant then how do you explain the difference in distance and time traveled as to their being in unison to an affect?

The only possible counter to that objection is that there is are influences that follow the same direction as their lights but travel at an inestimable speed that is far beyond the speed of light. And to that I have to counter...those lights aren't were those stars are any more...in fact some haven't been in those places for billions of years...and in fact as the stars are all of different distances God only knows where those stars might be presently in space [and whether they even still exist as some have collapsed, gone nova, etc...or to put it simply...they have disappeared] and in spatial relationship to one another at this time.

So, to tell me that Fixed Stars are of serious Astrological consideration is in my humble opinion, [of course] pure 'Hogwash'.
Those that insist they can demonstrate to the contrary are seeing only what they want to see...as I can point to dozens more that could just as easily be 'proven' to be that same influence...but the fact of the matter remains the same...they aren't of influence as I explained, because why they're not, in that which I wrote at the beginning of my post here.

It ain't the Stars Kids...!
...IMHO...Of Course

Quantum Entanglement - described by Einstein as "Spooky action at a distance" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QErwO...feature=relmfu

piercethevale · #32 11-26-2011, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Quantum Entanglement - described by Einstein as "Spooky action at a distance" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QErwO...feature=relmfu

Yes, I know of this. In fact the first time I heard about it I proposed that it could be used for instantaneous communication myself...as it is a simple binary communication.
But that still doesn't account for what is being done in the process I denounce. that of using illusory optical sighting to determine influence that one is trying to establish.