|
|
Post by MissusMack08 on Aug 19, 2017 12:51:16 GMT -6
As I was posting a comment in "Let's Find That Dragon," it became prudent to me to literally count the weeks that Virgo is said to be pregnant with Jupiter. And I came across something really interesting.
A healthy pregnancy is said to be 40 weeks from the previous menstrual period, with 38-42 weeks being an average normal time to give birth, and two weeks before or after that range as still being potentially healthy but risks are increased. Babies born between 36-38 weeks tend to have more breathing problems and babies staying in the womb after 42 weeks are more likely to die in the womb. But that essentially means anywhere from 36-44 weeks from the previous menstrual period is considered a normal human gestational period. However, that is from the PREVIOUS MENSTRUAL PERIOD.
The actual conception in a pregnancy occurs usually around 2 weeks AFTER the previous menstrual period. The menstrual period is just used for measuring because it's an objective point in time. Most women do not know EXACTLY when they ovulate, and nobody knows exactly when a sperm fertilizes an egg. So the menstrual period allows health professionals to estimate the time frame for when the baby is due.
Ok. Virgo didn't have a period that I'm aware of. However, there was a comet that entered her womb and exited the very day Jupiter entered (around November 17-18, 2016) that we are calling the "conception comet." So we potentially know when the "conception" occurred.
If we hold to the pregnancy symbolism and believe it is consistent with human gestation, then a normal pregnancy range is 34-42 weeks FROM CONCEPTION. If we assume the "conception comet" does indeed symbolize the conception of Virgo, let's do some calendar counting...
From CONCEPTION on November 17, 2016:
34 weeks = July 13, 2017 (we would say this is a 36 week baby)
36 weeks = July 27, 2017
38 weeks = Aug 10, 2017 (we would call this a Full Term Baby, 40 weeks from menstruation)
40 weeks = Aug 24, 2017
42 weeks = Sept 7, 2017 (max full term, 44 weeks, around the time Jupiter appears to exit Virgo's womb)
Sept 23 would actually be 44 weeks from conception, so essentially what we would call a 46 week baby, something that RARELY occurs naturally and modern medicine does not allow to occur because health risks to mom and baby greatly increase.
So how literal should we be with this pregnancy or does this maybe help us narrow down a timeline IF rapture is indicated with the birth?
Thoughts??? Sorry if this has been hashed out already somewhere...
|
|
|
|
Post by whatif on Aug 19, 2017 13:28:14 GMT -6
Well done, MissusMack08! Fascinating to consider!
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Aug 20, 2017 1:03:26 GMT -6
Just one thought on your excellent analysis:
I think you will find the modern medical estimate of 44 weeks maximum is based upon modern dietary and lifestyle habits.
Theoretically perfect (in terms of time) gestation, which I believe is demonstrated by the celestial representation, would be much more relevant to compliance with biblical dietary requirements - that is, a perfectly balanced diet containing all of the necessary nutrients needed for a perfect gestation. One may suggest Mary had a one-in-a-million precisely timed combination of such a diet - unheard of, but it may explain a perfectly inherited physical constitution that would have allowed Jesus to fast for 40 days, with minimal negative effects, other than the 'hungry' mentioned in scripture.
For example:
Currently, modern diet lacks anything more than (at best) trace amounts of zinc, which is wholly insufficient to meet the minimum requirements the body requires - approximately: 100mg per day (to make up for days when no zinc is consumed). US RDA is the minimum needed to prevent a daily deficit (resulting in slow starvation). If the minimum isn't received each day (and it isn't), then the modern pregnant female physiology cannot provide sufficient zinc to a gestating child (let alone maintain her own needs).
Therefore, modern medical estimates of gestation may be off, strictly speaking, from a 'perfectly designed' gestation resulting from a 'perfect' diet, and reflected in the 'perfect' gestation celestially represented.
Thus, we need to give ourselves some 'wiggle room' which allows us to comply with 'neither the day, nor the hour'; while still getting a 'window' of time that has the highest probability of resulting in an accurate estimation of the harpazo date.
|
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Aug 20, 2017 7:31:59 GMT -6
MissusMack08
The "Birth" can assume to take place on Sept. 9th - since that is the day Jupiter first exits the imaginary womb of Virgo (which according to your calculations matches very close to 42 weeks)
is that the actual birth? I have no way of knowing. But one of my initial rejection of this being the "Sign" was simply because the birth appeared BEFORE the sign date.
Others claim the birth does not occur until Jupiter leaves Virgo completely - which I believe is in Oct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 7:42:27 GMT -6
One point to consider......Through personal communication with Michael Svigel, he does not believe the labor of the Woman of Rev 12 is the same as the labor of Isaiah 66....they are not "equal", but there are parallels which he used to write his paper. If the two labors are conflated, then we may come to erroneous conclusions. For instance the birth in Isaiah is before labor, but the birth in Revelation is after labor, described by John with the Dragon lying in wait, but the child is snatched away to the throne after birth.
The parallel that Svigel points to is the corporate usage of "Arsen" in Rev 12 and Isaiah 66, which leads to his conclusion that the birth of Rev 12 is a corporate body.....not that the labor and births in the two passages are the same....others used Svigel's article to make that stretch, but he and I both would differ with that stretch.
|
|
|
|
Post by brad on Aug 20, 2017 9:02:52 GMT -6
As I was posting a comment in "Let's Find That Dragon," it became prudent to me to literally count the weeks that Virgo is said to be pregnant with Jupiter. And I came across something really interesting. A healthy pregnancy is said to be 40 weeks from the previous menstrual period, with 38-42 weeks being an average normal time to give birth, and two weeks before or after that range as still being potentially healthy but risks are increased. Babies born between 36-38 weeks tend to have more breathing problems and babies staying in the womb after 42 weeks are more likely to die in the womb. But that essentially means anywhere from 36-44 weeks from the previous menstrual period is considered a normal human gestational period. However, that is from the PREVIOUS MENSTRUAL PERIOD. The actual conception in a pregnancy occurs usually around 2 weeks AFTER the previous menstrual period. The menstrual period is just used for measuring because it's an objective point in time. Most women do not know EXACTLY when they ovulate, and nobody knows exactly when a sperm fertilizes an egg. So the menstrual period allows health professionals to estimate the time frame for when the baby is due. Ok. Virgo didn't have a period that I'm aware of. However, there was a comet that entered her womb and exited the very day Jupiter entered (around November 17-18, 2016) that we are calling the "conception comet." So we potentially know when the "conception" occurred. If we hold to the pregnancy symbolism and believe it is consistent with human gestation, then a normal pregnancy range is 34-42 weeks FROM CONCEPTION. If we assume the "conception comet" does indeed symbolize the conception of Virgo, let's do some calendar counting... From CONCEPTION on November 17, 2016: 34 weeks = July 13, 2017 (we would say this is a 36 week baby) 36 weeks = July 27, 2017 38 weeks = Aug 10, 2017 (we would call this a Full Term Baby, 40 weeks from menstruation) 40 weeks = Aug 24, 2017 42 weeks = Sept 7, 2017 (max full term, 44 weeks, around the time Jupiter appears to exit Virgo's womb) Sept 23 would actually be 44 weeks from conception, so essentially what we would call a 46 week baby, something that RARELY occurs naturally and modern medicine does not allow to occur because health risks to mom and baby greatly increase. So how literal should we be with this pregnancy or does this maybe help us narrow down a timeline IF rapture is indicated with the birth? Thoughts??? Sorry if this has been hashed out already somewhere... MissusMack, Really like your thoughts here. Some re-thinking sounds to be in order.... working on it... will post soon! |
|
|
|
Post by MissusMack08 on Aug 20, 2017 13:19:41 GMT -6
Just one thought on your excellent analysis: I think you will find the modern medical estimate of 44 weeks maximum is based upon modern dietary and lifestyle habits. Theoretically perfect (in terms of time) gestation, which I believe is demonstrated by the celestial representation, would be much more relevant to compliance with biblical dietary requirements - that is, a perfectly balanced diet containing all of the necessary nutrients needed for a perfect gestation. One may suggest Mary had a one-in-a-million precisely timed combination of such a diet - unheard of, but it may explain a perfectly inherited physical constitution that would have allowed Jesus to fast for 40 days, with minimal negative effects, other than the 'hungry' mentioned in scripture. For example: Currently, modern diet lacks anything more than (at best) trace amounts of zinc, which is wholly insufficient to meet the minimum requirements the body requires - approximately: 100mg per day (to make up for days when no zinc is consumed). US RDA is the minimum needed to prevent a daily deficit (resulting in slow starvation). If the minimum isn't received each day (and it isn't), then the modern pregnant female physiology cannot provide sufficient zinc to a gestating child (let alone maintain her own needs). Therefore, modern medical estimates of gestation may be off, strictly speaking, from a 'perfectly designed' gestation resulting from a 'perfect' diet, and reflected in the 'perfect' gestation celestially represented. Thus, we need to give ourselves some 'wiggle room' which allows us to comply with 'neither the day, nor the hour'; while still getting a 'window' of time that has the highest probability of resulting in an accurate estimation of the harpazo date. I concede to the possibility of longer safer gestational periods in the past. We know that our genomes are decaying and that could determine shorter gestational periods. God's DNA being perfect and I assume Mary's was pretty good, so Jesus may have stayed in longer. As a nurse and someone acutely interested in diet because of my own previous health issues especially in regards to pregnancy, I'm not sure if the zinc issue can be touted as the specific cause for shorter gestational periods across the board. Not every person eats the SAD especially if they're not in America. From my own experience, I ate an extremely Low Carb High Fat diet, which mostly consisted of supposedly zinc rich meats, cheeses, and nuts, while I was pregnant with my child in order to control blood sugar without having to take any medications. My baby was born a day before her due date. My pregnancy was perfect, my labor was perfect, and my baby was perfect, even a "perfect" 7.5 lbs. (not to mention I didn't gain any weight beyond the weight of the pregnancy—I was down to my pre-pregnancy weight two weeks after she was born). I'm a huge proponent of LCHF, lol. But that's anecdotal experience. Beyond that, I would expect that if the conception, pregnancy and birth are all part of the Sign that God would do it in a way we would be familiar with and would recognize it. Otherwise, the pregnancy could theoretically last forever and there'd be no point in expecting anything to happen this month or next month or the rest of this year. While that does fit in with the "no man knows the day or the hour" scenario (and I'm not saying we pin point it to a day or hour), I still believe God does things very precisely on His clock. It is very curious to me that Jupiter appears to exit the womb on the 42 week point. |
|
|
|
Post by MissusMack08 on Aug 20, 2017 13:39:39 GMT -6
MissusMack08 The "Birth" can assume to take place on Sept. 9th - since that is the day Jupiter first exits the imaginary womb of Virgo (which according to your calculations matches very close to 42 weeks) is that the actual birth? I have no way of knowing. But one of my initial rejection of this being the "Sign" was simply because the birth appeared BEFORE the sign date. Others claim the birth does not occur until Jupiter leaves Virgo completely - which I believe is in Oct. I struggled with this too. But what if the Sept 23 sign is actually for The Dragon? I keep trying to figure out how the Old Testament prophecies keep saying "before her travail" or "brought forth wind" with the interpretation being that BEFORE the labor starts, the "male child" is born and then the labor starts. But in Revelation we have "Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth...And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born." How can she be in travail to give birth (having not yet given birth) and yet give birth before she travails AT THE SAME TIME?? Does the dragon not see the birth and is therefore waiting for the birth at the end of the travail which isn't going to come (like there's a gap between rapture and when Satan gets kicked out of heaven, but he somehow doesn't know the rapture occurred?) I feel like the more I think I've got it figured out, the more questions I come up with, lol! |
|
|
|
Post by MissusMack08 on Aug 20, 2017 13:48:49 GMT -6
One point to consider......Through personal communication with Michael Svigel, he does not believe the labor of the Woman of Rev 12 is the same as the labor of Isaiah 66....they are not "equal", but there are parallels which he used to write his paper. If the two labors are conflated, then we may come to erroneous conclusions. For instance the birth in Isaiah is before labor, but the birth in Revelation is after labor, described by John with the Dragon lying in wait, but the child is snatched away to the throne after birth. The parallel that Svigel points to is the corporate usage of "Arsen" in Rev 12 and Isaiah 66, which leads to his conclusion that the birth of Rev 12 is a corporate body.....not that the labor and births in the two passages are the same....others used Svigel's article to make that stretch, but he and I both would differ with that stretch. Lol! I replied to a previous comment with this very contradiction before I read your comment. I didn't know Svigel had pointed out that contradiction. Hmmm... My consistency sensibilities are twitching... |
|
