I was following this too because of the Gman factor.catherine wrote:I'd be interested to know what the moderators think of this topic. Their input would be most appreciated.
I am not so sure what it adds to what is already plainly clear to those who believe. Could it be used as an apologetic perhaps? Maybe to those with a fascination in astrology. So if I ever come across such a person I may perhaps search for this thread and research the information behind it more closely.
However, there is a trend that in order to be accepted as educated and bright one must explain away the historical elements in Scripture, whether they are spiritualised or something else. Because they are hard to verify and prove (any history is since history deals with the past), many educated people going through Christian colleges feel pressure to accept the stories in the Old Testament as less than historical truth. The tendency is to spiritualise or "go with the flow" of the alternative stories produced by secular thought. The idea that God actually did intervene throughout history is just not even on the table of acceptable options (as I discovered in the Christian college I attended), which is quite strange I thought for those who considered themselves Christian (Theists).
Why go into this detail? The author Gman quotes says: "There a lot of good reasons to perceive the narratives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the twelve sons of Israel as fictional accounts. One of them is that scholars have been able to date the time in which they were written to about the seventh century, and, according to the Bible, the events were supposed to have taken place about 2200 BCE—a 1600 year gap." What lineage did Christ descend from if we do this? What of the prophecies regarding Christ? Turning this historical account into fiction (for which I see no reason to consider it allegory in Scripture), fictionalises other elements in Scripture and even undermines Christ's right to being Messiah. To do this destroys the story of redemption rather than proclaims it. Christ is not Messiah but was just a mere man (or human for the ladies) like us.
And to do this based on a few correlations from astrology to a Hebrew zodiac? My thoughts are there is nothing wrong with being intrigued and learning about the interesting elements. Maybe such information could be used down the track to reach someone interested in astrology (which is what this still appears to be, albeit "Christian astrology" whether or not that makes it better). However, all we need to know is found in Scripture and many other arguments in the realm of Christian apologetics would be more solid to use.
