Tuesday, 13 December 2016

Are the Times Apocalyptic?

I mentioned in a debate it could be useful to know angels are actually doing a choreography, when it comes to the sign which is upcoming next year.

Revelation 12:1 Sign Will Appear In 2017!

I got a response that the sign was not angels doing anything, just a natural prodect of ongoing process AND that, unlike the claim made by Vatican Catholic, the sign does not appear the first time.

Here is their description:

"According to non-Catholic astronomers who have studied and looked at how these constellations have moved and will move around in the future, this will be the only time in history things will all line up like this."

I think they are repeating the information bona fide.

Now, the reasoning behind the co-debaters claim this is not the first time is this : all of the planets are moving periodically and so this line up is also periodical.

Fair enough as far as it goes. In an infinite past and infinite future, the line up would be happening an infinite number of times.

But the time is actually limited.

This means, we can meaningfully ask whether the line up has or has not previously occurred since creation.

Now, before we go into this, let us do a little maths.

Venus, Mars, Mercury all have shorter circuits "around the Sun" than history has taken. It is very certainly not that long since Venus was where it will be in the line up, not that long since Mars was where it will be in the lineup, not that long since Mercury was where it will be in the lineup. Can it reasonably be a significant time since they all were together in same lineup?

Now, here is where some maths is useful.

Let us take a case with natural numbers - the ones which, unlike "real numbers" really are numbers. Since locusts only live one season per year as doing the thing they do before our eyes, locusts can be a good simile for starting points.

If one tribe or species of locusts swarms every five years, and one other swarms every six years, they will both be swarming every thirty years.

In year five from last time, only first will be swarming, in year six only second will be swarming, in year ten only first, in year twelve only second and so on. But in year thirty they will both be swarming.

Assume we were dealing with three tribes of locusts. Assume that the third tribe swarms every nine years.

In that case, the three tribes will be swarming together every 90 years.

We do not need to multiply 30 with 9 to get 270, it is enough to multiply each prime factor as its highest exponent.

A - prime factor 5.
B - prime factors 2 and 3.
C - prime factor 3 squared.

Three squared times two times five gives ninety. Since no number of interval years has "three cubed" we do not need "three cubed".

Next question is what happens if there is instead a tribe which has an interval of another number not sharing same primes. Say, every seven years.

Now, seven is lower than nine, so perhaps the interval for the common swarming of three tribes would be lower than ninety? No.

A - prime factor 5.
B - prime factors 2 and 3.
C' - prime factor 7.

Thirty times seven gives two hundred and ten. Between those periods, the tribes of locusts will swarm one by one or two by two, but only after two hunudred and ten years all three together.

So, what happens with planets?

I would definitely say, periods are longer - I just checked that only once every 83 years does Jupiter match the requirements. Last time Jupiter alone behaved like it will behave next year, was in 1934.

Because, the maths I was going to just hint at about planets, and hint that last time the line up was, it was before modern telescopes and such, a youtube user called chisza7 has already done in detail.

His conclusion : once in 7000 years. But here is the video:

How rare is the Revelation 12 Heavenly Sign [23 September 2017] Once in 7000 Years

Note, I have not come to where he makes the final countdown, I am not sure if "7000" isn't an approximation. I think it is, I think we must be dealing with some multiple of 83 close to 7000.*

83*84 = 6972
83*85 = 7055

No idea which of the rest match up better with the other planets.

If the Vulgate chronology were the correct one, that would mean that "last time" this line up happened was before creation.

If - as I do - we go by Roman Martyrology for December 25, we get these dates:

7216 7216 7216 Second Lineup ? Anno Mundi 7000 6972 7055 distance in years 0216 0244 0161 First Lineup ? Anno Mundi

So, first lineup would have been while Adam was alive, before or after Seth was born.

What if we go by the other LXX based chronology, the Byzantine one?

7525 7525 7525 Second Lineup ? Anno Mundi
7000 6972 7055 distance in years
0525 0553 0470 First Lineup ? Anno Mundi

Either way, if chisza7 is right, it was very long ago.

And since Adam was alive, it would perhaps have been a prophecy to him about what is going to happen now.

But apart from what Adam can have known, next year is probably the first time this great sign will actually appear in Heaven, for another reason.

Adam was probably not using telescopes. We are.

This means we can be watching the whole configuration of stars and planets, even if the Sun is there in the middle of it.

Without the Sun being there, we would not have the apocalyptic sign that the Woman is "clad in the Sun".

With it before telescopes, and matters or filters, we would not have been able to watch the sign in integrity.

And the verse which begins Apocalypse 12 is

And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

Et signum magnum apparuit in caelo: mulier amicta sole, et luna sub pedibus ejus, et in capite ejus corona stellarum duodecim:

To the naked eye, this configuration cannot appear. We cannot look at the sun. If we look at the approximate direction, we look at day time sky, meaning that we miss all the stars because of daylight.

If we look at it on one meridian as sun just has set or on another one as sun is just going to rise, we miss either upper or lower part of the sign.

Either by miracle or by telescopes, the next year the sign is astronomically speaking set to be there in a time when it can also appear.

Therefore, I do tend to think this is Apocalyptically significant.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Lucy, Virgin, Martyr

* It could be that instead it is 83 which is an approximation and 7000 which is exact, or both are approximations. In the latter case, previous time (supposing chisza7 got the astronomical maths right) of the lineup, but not of an appearance of the entire sign, may have been when Seth was born, 205 Anno Mundi./HGL PS, sorry, 230 Anno Mundi!/HGL

No comments:

Post a Comment