# How do "stars fall from the sky"?



## atlashunter (Jul 2, 2011)

I wonder what was meant when Jesus said this?

Mark 13:25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.

Other biblical references to the same...
Isaiah 34:4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree.

Revelation 6:13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.

How would people in ancient times have understood these verses?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 3, 2011)

Meteor shower? Although that doesn't explain heavens dissolving and the sky rolling up..


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 3, 2011)

I think it is an allusion to fallen angels???


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I think it is an allusion to fallen angels???



If so, I wonder why the "stars fall" term is used so much while "fallen angel" is not at all.


----------



## CAL (Jul 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> How would people in ancient times have understood these verses?



I think believers would have believed and the unbelievers would make fun and jest just as they do now.Time will definitely tell who has the correct answer!


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jul 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I wonder what was meant when Jesus said this?
> 
> Mark 13:25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.
> 
> ...



Meteor shower, imho.  With it being a flat earth, things were much more dangerous in such a situation too.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 3, 2011)

CAL said:


> I think believers would have believed and the unbelievers would make fun and jest just as they do now.Time will definitely tell who has the correct answer!



I'm thinking Jesus might not have understood what stars were.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I wonder what was meant when Jesus said this?
> 
> Mark 13:25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.
> 
> ...



Whatever was meant by it, it does not sound favorable for folks on the Earth.


----------



## fish hawk (Jul 3, 2011)

Stars fell on Alabama....Dang,everybody knows that.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I wonder what was meant when Jesus said this?
> 
> Mark 13:25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.
> 
> ...



I suspect Isaiah is simply stating ancient wisdom. The heavens dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll is simply ancient spiritual knowledge. See Hinduism et al.

 ( Personally I think that in part, it is not inconceivable that seven thousand yrs ago the effects of the Ice Age was still fresh in people's conciousness and in turn man's spiritual outlook.)

In any case ancient wisdom lines up our focus and attention from our physical nature and onto our spiritual natures. It sort of shoots us out of our animal bodies and imediate needs and onto the world that makes us emotional human beings. 

As to Revelation, my understanding comes from the form it is written in--which is called apocaliptic.  It is a poetic and an epic narrative. Its focus is on the influence of the spiritual to human events. ( Usually spirituality focuses on events to the spiritual.)  Therefore the focus is on the influence of christianity on the known human world--the individual and the social. There is an element in christianity, for its convictions, that looks to changes in the future as forseeable.   


Mark 13:25 I suspect that Mark here is talking about the the reality of christian persecutions combined in the down ward spiral and immoral fits of the Roman Empire and the Jewish theocracy as it tries desperately and in vain to regroup itself.

It is in vain because Mark understands that in Christ Ceaser's (Rome-Empire) and the Jewish leaders' might will not make them right and the devine authority over men. Rather it is the men and women who serve Ceaser that will proclaim the will of God and inhabit His new Kingdom.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 4, 2011)

The scriptures would have made perfect literal sense in the time they were written. I doubt they were intended or understood as being figurative or symbolic.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The scriptures would have made perfect literal sense in the time they were written. I doubt they were intended or understood as being figurative or symbolic.




I believe your doubt is ill placed. Athough some believed in the literal return of Jesus in their lifetimes at this time or in their "generation" and were very disapointed when it did not happen, Revelations was perposely written in the format it is in-- so that the "elect" would understand ( because they were use to its forms)  and the others would see it as religious rubbish. 

I should point out that stars falling from the sky and also following stars, as in the wise men who followed them, had spiritual significanse  in the middle east two thousand yrs ago. Of course if you were a sailor in the Kings navy, stars were important.

Remember there was no such thing as freedom of speech back then. And for indiscretions Roman authority would easily cut your hands off and hang them around your neck as a necklace and give you back alive to your friends--just to show how handsome you were for your bright ideas.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 4, 2011)

Is it an accident that Revelation uses the same language as Isaiah? Someone in the time of Isaiah or Jesus would have thought it possible for the stars to "fall to earth" just as figs drop from a fig tree. There is no indication that Jesus was speaking figuratively in this passage of Mark. When he did speak symbolically in Mark such as in his parables the wording makes it clear so that one can differentiate between when he means something literally and when he doesn't. If you were going to say something that made perfect literal sense to the people you were saying it to but you didn't intend it literally then you would need to give them some indication of your intended meaning. I think what you are trying to do gordon is reinterpret what was intended and understood at the time to be literal into purely symbolic for obvious reasons.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Is it an accident that Revelation uses the same language as Isaiah? Someone in the time of Isaiah or Jesus would have thought it possible for the stars to "fall to earth" just as figs drop from a fig tree. There is no indication that Jesus was speaking figuratively in this passage of Mark. When he did speak symbolically in Mark such as in his parables the wording makes it clear so that one can differentiate between when he means something literally and when he doesn't. If you were going to say something that made perfect literal sense to the people you were saying it to but you didn't intend it literally then you would need to give them some indication of your intended meaning. I think what you are trying to do gordon is reinterpret what was intended and understood at the time to be literal into purely symbolic for obvious reasons.



 13:9 But look to yourselves;... ( not in someone saying they are the second coming, or in wars and conflicts, famines and calamities.) 

If stars were to fall and the powers of heaven shaken literally-- these would be calamitous.

Yourselves here are friends, deciples, believers, the faithful all in the same spiritual boat. Jesus gives distinction between the mondane world given to superstition and the real spiritual world of believers.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 4, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> If stars were to fall and the powers of heaven shaken literally-- these would be calamitous.



Yes. Far more than anyone at that time would have known.



> 25And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
> 
> 26And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.



If the stars literally "fell" to earth there would be no "and then". There would be no clouds to see someone coming in. But people in Jesus time didn't know that. It appears neither did Jesus.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yes. Far more than anyone at that time would have known.
> 
> 
> 
> If the stars literally "fell" to earth there would be no "and then". There would be no clouds to see someone coming in. But people in Jesus time didn't know that. It appears neither did Jesus.



Again He was not talking about literal stars falling. He knew what he was talking about. Of course He never said they would fall to earth. Did He? Just that they would and the heavens shaken up?


----------



## pnome (Jul 5, 2011)

With an omnipotent deity, anything is possible.

He could easily increase the Earth's gravitational pull such that all of the visible light stars would "fall" towards the Earth.  

Wouldn't want to be here when that happens though.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The scriptures would have made perfect literal sense in the time they were written.* I doubt they were intended or understood as being figurative or symbolic.*





atlashunter said:


> Is it an accident that Revelation uses the same language as Isaiah? Someone in the time of Isaiah or Jesus would have thought it possible for the stars to "fall to earth" just as figs drop from a fig tree. There is no indication that Jesus was speaking figuratively in this passage of Mark. When *he did speak symbolically* in Mark such as in his parables the wording makes it clear so that one can differentiate between when he means something literally and when he doesn't. If you were going to say something that made perfect literal sense to the people you were saying it to but you didn't intend it literally then you would need to give them some indication of your intended meaning. I think what you are trying to do gordon is reinterpret what was intended and understood at the time to be literal into purely symbolic for obvious reasons.



Which one is it?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 5, 2011)

pnome said:


> With an omnipotent deity, anything is possible.
> 
> He could easily increase the Earth's gravitational pull such that all of the visible light stars would "fall" towards the Earth.
> 
> Wouldn't want to be here when that happens though.



There wouldn't be a "here" with that strong a gravitational pull. There would be no clouds and no earth. Even a black hole wouldn't be strong enough to suck in all of the visible stars in the night sky. But that aside, saying the stars fell to the earth is like saying all the planets in our solar system will fall to Newton's apple. The relative scales of the objects are all out of whack. But people didn't know that in Jesus time. If he was who he is claimed to have been he would have known. Would he have said something he knew to be untrue just to make a point? If one can bring themselves to say that he was speaking metaphorically in this verse then why should the entire passage not be taken metaphorically?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 5, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> Again He was not talking about literal stars falling. He knew what he was talking about. Of course He never said they would fall to earth. Did He? Just that they would and the heavens shaken up?



No he doesn't specifically say they will fall to the earth (where else would people at that time think they could fall to?) but Revelation does. He is speaking about the tribulation and the second coming. So does Revelation. So are we to assume the verses are talking about the same event. Or do you think that the stars will fall out of the sky two different times, once to earth and another time to some other place?


----------



## pnome (Jul 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> There wouldn't be a "here" with that strong a gravitational pull.



With an anti-gravity force field surrounding everything on Earth everything would be fine.

Omnipotence is not limited by your lack of imagination.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 5, 2011)

pnome said:


> With an anti-gravity force field surrounding everything on Earth everything would be fine.
> 
> Omnipotence is not limited by your lack of imagination.



That's true but if you want to go that route gravity need not even enter the picture. Just resort to the "magic" answer and be done with it. I wonder if he would also shrink and cool the stars so that they wouldn't destroy the planet? But then if you're going to go through all of that what exactly is so significant about it? No more lights twinkly little lights in the sky? I guess these are the sort of wild assumptions one has to make in order to keep Jesus own words from making him look ignorant. For some there is just nothing too absurd to believe to avoid what is staring them square in the face.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That's true but if you want to go that route gravity need not even enter the picture. Just resort to the "magic" answer and be done with it. I wonder if he would also shrink and cool the stars so that they wouldn't destroy the planet? But then if you're going to go through all of that what exactly is so significant about it? No more lights twinkly little lights in the sky? I guess these are the sort of wild assumptions one has to make in order to keep Jesus own words from making him look ignorant. For some there is just nothing too absurd to believe to avoid what is staring them square in the face.



Truth.


----------

