Ok... Kiononia House has sided against the Rev12 alignment

Thank you for posting this, hillary! I'll take a listen to it as soon as possible!

Personally, I had a hard time watching. He's coming across harsh and it almost felt like an old fashioned scold session. There were any number of times when his word choice sounded derogatory and condescending. Honestly? It just made me sad.

How hard would it be to just say something neutral like, "Not sure I'm seeing this the same way but we'll know soon. We're told to look up all the more as we see that day approaching so this is a good thing as long as everyone is careful."

(SMH)

Another rebuffment. Well, dust yourselves off folks, and smile, because Jesus knows the truth, and we are His, and He is ours.

I merged these two threads since they are about the same thing.

okay, I apologize in advance if what I have typed below appears to be a bit...lacking in patience. I typed my comments as I listened to the show. and hope that I have adequately counter-argued for what I have been researching for the last couple months. I also hope I haven't been too... savage in my replies.


Premise #1 and #3 are both mis-stated. This allows for the straw-man arguments that follow.

7 problems:

1. The constellation in question is not based upon what occurred in the past, or what will occur in the future.
He has the telling the story part backwards. The stories do not make the constellations, the constellations make the story - see Missler.
The current zodiac is a corruption of the original story the Creator placed in the stars to tell the entirety of the creation and redemption story.
The quantity of stars visible that make up a given constellation is based upon what is commonly visible with the naked eye.
Show me where the Bible says 'planet' not 'star'?

2. There have been MANY people who have verified this, and agree. He is accusing people of not doing their 'berean' homework!
He is right about those who follow along just for the excitement.
He is exclaiming how dangerous knowledge is.

3. There are little if any holes in this research.
A surprise solar eclipse has already been explained as only a possibility. There is nothing to back it up but speculation. This has been admitted.
The brightest event occurred when Jupiter conjuncted with Venus. It would have taken time for the magi to get to Jerusalem after seeing it. So 2 BC makes total sense, since the Christ was born in 3 BC. Who is he crediting with his assertions? He's mixing things in to discredit the basic core message.
I just plotted the data for comet 67P (Borisov). It has nothing to do with interacting with the moon.
He conflates the three people's statements and then picks the worst position to dismiss them all.

4. Isolation = when no one else agrees with you, you must be wrong?
I dont recall anyone here, or scottie saying everyone else is wrong? Yet this guy is doing just that?
He pre-supposes that a new idea must by definition be contrary, because it wasn't known about beforehand? He's basically saying that we know already all there could be to know, and that a new perspective isn't how we have always viewed things, so it must be wrong.

Speculation typically has no facts to back it up. No observations, no data collected from which to draw a conclusion/hypothesis. Though I agree that uncertainty does need to be considered. Of course, being uncertain is not likely to convince people that you are right!

So it becomes a sell-fulfilling prophecy: act uncertain in your hypothesizing, and then we the established 'gurus' can steamroll you into silent submission? Way to keep the status quo!

By awareness of potential impact, he implies that no one has done anything more than surface research. No depth, cross-checking, and verification against other passages must have been done, let alone having someone check your work. From what I have seen on this board, and with the research done and cross-checked by people, the scripture was not done in isolation. It was done, and 'peer reviewed'.

5. The events of Sept 23, are a single event in the complete macrocosm of events eschatelogically. This is his strawman argument: you have to look at ALL the events as a whole, and since we cant possibly know what ALL of them mean, you cant evaluate a single event within them. It's SO difficult to get a consolidated view (condescending voice) that YOU the LAYMAN couldn't POSSIBLY figure this stuff out, because WE the GURUS find it SO difficult ourselves. Not to mention he has his 1260 days wrong. It's 1290 for the last half of the Trib.

Yes, we couldn't possibly understand that there are three views of the rapture in the pre-millennial view. We also, as laymen, have no idea that there are 3 sets of 7 judgments: Seals, Trumpets, and Bowls/Vials. All of which are irrelevant to the Revelation 12:1-2 sign that he is trying to debunk.

6. Expositional Constancy and the Law of First mention do not consider the possibility of the use of types, foreshadowing, or parallelism. The text of Rev 12:1-2 and its corresponding context as shown in the heavens most certainly is not a pretext (excuse) to invent a potential rapture scenario. Because the first two verses of Rev 12 are in... which context? Since there is a break in what John sees from Chapter 11? Oh, that's right, they ARE the context!

The text is descriptive enough that a configuration of stars and planets, which happens to be 'in the heavens', which occurs ONCE in recorded history, just happens to FIT what the text says. How is that reading into the text?

He CAREFULLY picked his words when he said 'an individual clothed with something from the cosmos' at 44:39. He is clearly setting up a strawman argument. There is no one clothed with something from the cosmos in Gen 37:9. I will carefully refrain from suggesting that he is clearly obfuscating. At best.

Israel is described as a woman in travail IN PROPHECY. In the time of Jacob's Trouble: Isa 66:7 is the very passage that describes how the child will be born BEFORE the woman goes into labor! Jer 4:31 - read the end of it... 'my life is given over to murderers" Not to mention that this 'context' begins at vs 27 and is clearly referring to the second half of the Trib! Mic 4:10 deals with when they were taken captive to Babylon!

Israel already brought forth the messiah! The claims for Rev 12:1-2 aren't that Israel is bringing forth the messiah! He failed to develop his point for bringing the Messiah into the matter.

Rev 12:3-4 is a confirming sign, that follows chronologically after the 'great sign' but without a specified time frame. Most of the discussion I have seen is not considering Rev 12:3-4 because we cannot determine what a celestial representation of 1/3 of the angels being kicked out of heaven will look like. He is attempting to lump together a clearly unresolved prophecy about a DIFFERENT sign in with the certainty of the Rev 12:1-2 sign so that he can dismiss the claims of the Rev 12:1-2 sign. "In addition, we get the context" not from what has come before as he insisted had to be done, but from 4 verses LATER.

Harpazo literally means 'forcibly removed'. His point number 2 fails to point out that the word for taken up in Luke is NOT harpazo. He fails to explain where harpazo is used when it DOESNT mean forcibly removed! He also fails to mention the word 'child' is 'neuter' indicating corporate status - the body of Christ, as it also is in Isa 66:7!

7. Scottie was VERY clear that he was talking ONLY about Rev 12:1-2 and 5. Since he disclaims making a prediction, you cant claim that he is making a prediction! There is a BIG difference between a PREDICTION, and an INTERPRETATION of rev 12:1-2, 5!

Scottie, and others have INTERPRETED Rev 12:1-2, they haven't PREDICTED ANYTHING relative to those two verses!

Good thoughts, yardstick.

One thing to remember is there is a big fat difference between a prophecy and a prediction. There is nothing wrong with making predictions--they are fallible ad everyone should understand that. Prophecy is when you authoritatively say a thing is so-- and that is a big difference.

I haven't watched the vid yet but people are going to say what they are going to say. If you are standing in truth you have a solid foundation and you can stand strong. Will we be raptured on Sept 23? Maybe, maybe not but the signs show a great possibility and they are the ones missing out by closing their minds off to possibilities. Yay for us... we get to have another very high watch time to be excited about.

Btw... good rant yardstick! Lots of good points