You sure it doesn't have to do with the atmosphere acting as a convex lens and thereby expanding the image, relative to the 'high noon' position where it travels through less air and at a less oblique angle?

I'm sure, during high school I was in the astronomy club, this is one of the things learned during that time.  Any wyas, here is a link to an article that relates to it.

http://www.straightdope.com/co...ger-near-the-horizon

The atmosphere is equally convex in the morning and at noon. Also keep in mind that that convex realisticlly depends on something being relativly convex in the curvature between the two surfaces- a curved piece of glass which is relatively flat comparing on surface to another will not magnify... but then agian this is all information that would not have been available 2000 years ago.

Wow, rude and illogical. His theory that the refraction only holds up for a few minutes is clearly false because the light from the moon is going through progressively less atmosphere from its entire trip from rise to zenith. I'm not saying his original answer is wrong, but his rebuttal clearly is.

On the other hand he offers a repeatable expiriment to verify the results.

*shrugs* was only one of the many links out there.  I just grabbed one.  I live in Arizona, so Lowls observatory is only 50 miles away form me.  They had a large section on the moon that gives basically the same explanation as this guy, just not as "rude"

I don't believe in experimental verification. I'm more like Aristotle in my methods. If it sounds right, it probably is.

Seriously though, yeah, I looked at some other sites which repeated the comment, so I'm willing to accept it on faith (I've never noticed the illusion myself, so I don't especially care regardless).

I've never seen a big moon before;  I do know the angle changes the color, though, since I've seen plenty of orange and blood-red moons.

Continuing a discussion that started in the Israel/Palestine thread:



Jesus also said he'd return within his apostles generation.

But let's make it a bit more specific.  How close do you feel the second coming is?  You seem to be saying it's "Even at the door."  What does that mean to you?  Months?  Years?  Decades?  What would you say is the upper bound on how far off it is?

Yes, yes, probably not. By the time I"m finished, or even before I"m finished typing this message to you, he could be here.

I'd like to see your Bible passage. I have a Bible nearby. Show me the passage that you have that proves Jesus saying he would return in the Apostle's lifetime.

Well clearly that one has been proven wrong ;P

Widespread belief that the end times are near is extremely common in Christian history. In fact the Seventh Day Adventists owe their existence to that (when Millerism rose from calculations in Daniel, then clearly failed to pan out).

There are a few lines which pretty strongly suggest Jesus should be expected back within a generation:

1 John 12:18 "18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour."

Luke 21:32 “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

It's also pretty clear from the historical record that first-century Christians and prophets believed that the world would end with their generation (I think it's pretty clear they've been proven wrong). But these are the people with direct testimony from Jesus or the first apostles, so they probably have more information than we do.

I can't find 1 John 12:18. . . ?
I know it's there somewhere.

I do, however, have Luke right in front of me, and it looks like it's saying something metaphorical, or if not metaphorical, then something prophetic, since it states many things have to happen before they know that their generation was the one to come to pass.

Even if I use the phrase "this generation", it doesn't invalidate Pre-Tribulation Rapture because of the context.

Are you saying Joe living in 35 AD couldn't reasonably interpret the line as saying 'before my kids die, the world will end'? Or are you saying that people like Joe could have, but just never did interpret the line like that?

There were some people in the 1st century AD that possibly thought like that. It didn't mean that they were right though. Even the Apostles, wisest and devout before all others, enough to make Billy Graham look like an amateur, were said to be prophetically ignorant. Which was ok. Jesus was the last Prophet, we didn't and don't need any other Prophet other than him. (Which is why the Apostles should not be faulted for something that wasn't their job.)

So you're comfortable with Tycho's statements?

Apparently not, since people have felt it's very close, again for 2,000 years.



A self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it?  Do you think the people who refounded Israel were unaware of what Jesus said?  This isn't like predicting a Solar Eclipse; The Moon doesn't decide that it should cover up the Sun because somebody on Earth said it would.  People do.



What a shock, people scoff at something that sounds ludicrous.  That's not a prediction, any more than me saying "I know you're not gonna believe this, but an alien came in and stole those cookies", and then saying "Aha! I knew you weren't going to believe me, hence Aliens exist!"

It's a childish route of thinking, and it's only purpose is to make people who don't know any better feel undeservedly smug.

Have you thought that maybe people aren't scoffing at you because somehow Jesus is pulling their strings?  It could be because you think Jesus is pulling their strings that they scoff at you.

I'm not sure what I should think about you calling someone childish when you are the first to resort to name calling in the first place.

If you really think something is irrational, you should only realize that by mistreating someone in both word and deed will only harden their stance towards you.

I made sure to call the thinking childish, and not you, because I do not think it is truly your thinking, as it's something I've heard countless times.

The only thing that I would direct at you, and not your argument, is that you should critically review your arguments before you present them.

"You just think I'm wrong because I'm right" is not a good argument, and I hope you can understand my venom is aimed at that argument and not you.

You're smarter than that, and you're smarter than whoever came up with it.

Ah, I see.

Well, I'd just like to say that it should not be frowned on, although it will be, for us to believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, because we aren't setting dates. Theoretically, if Mid or Post Tribulation Rapture still occurs, we all still have Heaven waiting for us.

I have no issues with most beliefs, and at the core I probably don't have any real issue with yours.

Nor do I want to dissuade you from those beliefs.  I only wish to destroy bad reasons for believing things.  Because without good reasons, a person can believe anything.

I also have to agree that "people will be expecting it" and "people will scoff" are pretty weak indicators. That's pretty much the case for everything. There are people who, literally, are expecting the lizardmen to rise out of New Mexico and claim the human race (and there are people who scoff at the idea). I don't think prefacing "the lizardmen will rise and claim the Earth" with "and some people will be expecting it and some people will scoff at it" adds any real validity to the prediction.

The State of Israel bit is a bit stronger, but not really. The state of Israel at the time was under Roman Occupation. The idea of it being made whole was a real political movement. A modern equivalent would be "and one day the country will set up universal health care". It doesn't seem like an unreasonable prophecy. It's also ignoring the possibility of a metaphorical reading.

Now, the bit about bees with the heads of lions is a pretty tough prophecy. If I see bees with the heads of lions attacking people around the world, you got me, end times.

Sounds like an Asylum-Studios horror movie :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...&feature=related

That's...er...really something, Kathulos.

"That D N A never gets older than 33, they tell me."