I love Astronomy not astrology.

I love Astronomy not astrology.
Buster is my nick name given by
my Mother, so that's what I've
always been called. My real initials
in wingdings looks like glasses to 
SEE!!! That's what i'm doing here
looking through Projection Glasses
hooked-up to my Telescope.



Matthew 13:16
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

If I'm ever in Flori-duh again I'm dropin' by to peek through your wonderful telescope, Buster. Last time I used my little 6inch reflector was when shoemaker-levy crashed into Jupiter. I was watching it happen in real time though my tiny scope was barely able to resolve it. Poor little scope started to loose it's reflective mirror coating soon after that and it's been retired for years. Add to that, light pollution has tripled here in the past 20 years. Can't see poop now. Saturn was my favorite to see with rings and 4 moons (out of how many) resolvable through my old scope.

Our God is an awesome creator. Nuts to those who say it all happened by chance.

researcher wrote:

If I'm ever in Flori-duh again I'm dropin' by to peek through your wonderful telescope, Buster. Last time I used my little 6inch reflector was when shoemaker-levy crashed into Jupiter. I was watching it happen in real time though my tiny scope was barely able to resolve it. Poor little scope started to loose it's reflective mirror coating soon after that and it's been retired for years. Add to that, light pollution has tripled here in the past 20 years. Can't see poop now. Saturn was my favorite to see with rings and 4 moons (out of how many) resolvable through my old scope.

Our God is an awesome creator. Nuts to those who say it all happened by chance.

Would love to have you here my friend. Sorry to hear about your telescope, but they do that. I made mine air tight with a 6.3 focal reducer, which makes my type of scope better for viewing the planets, and deep sky objects, and will give me a few more years with it. My kids always love to see Saturn. The light pollution is bad here too, but there's some sites that give me dark skies. I also have hooked to my scope a STV Video and still camera that gives me some great views of the night sky. I named my scope (Jessica's Window) after my daughter. Love them both because they both give me great joy.

the pagans and witches stole their zodiac from the mazzaroth and perverted it....lots of info throughout history concerning this...i always like j.r. church, a simple man who meant well, so i'll use him for anyone not familiar with the gospel in the stars

http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/sep2011/jimmyl95-2.htm

michael371 wrote:

the pagans and witches stole their zodiac from the mazzaroth and perverted it....lots of info throughout history concerning this...i always like j.r. church, a simple man who meant well, so i'll use him for anyone not familiar with the gospel in the stars

http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/sep2011/jimmyl95-2.htm

Gospel in the Stars?: What Does the Bible Say About Astrology?
For non-members
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/astrology.html

The so-called “Gospel in the Stars” theory (hereafter, GIS) teaches that the twelve zodiac signs (as allegedly pictured in the constellations) visibly display the Gospel message for all people to see. Each of the signs is said to depict a specific phase in God’s plan of salvation, beginning with humanity’s fall into sin to its ultimate redemption to God’s eternal kingdom by a Savior. The sign of Cancer, for instance, is believed to signify the Savior’s redeemed possessions, with the attendant minor signs — Ursa Minor, Ursa Major, and Argo — supposedly representing the redemption of Jews and Gentiles as one flock.
Miss Frances Rolleston, a nineteenth-century English classicist and linguist, is credited as having formulated GIS. She popularized the theory with her book, Mazzaroth — The Constellations, published in 1863.
Later that same century, Anglican minister E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913) produced two books that enhanced GIS’s credibility and popularity. The first, titled The Companion Bible, contained nearly 200 appendices advancing such speculative or erroneous ideas as numerics, ultradispensationalism, Ussher’s date for the beginning of creation (4004 B.C.), and, of course, GIS. Bullinger’s other book, The Witness of the Stars, focused exclusively on GIS, and for that reason was responsible for generating an even higher level of interest with the subject. Both books are still published and read widely today.
Other well-known GIS advocates, past and present, include Joseph Seiss, Bertha Carr-Harris, Duane E. Spencer, William D. Banks, and Chuck Missler.
Though GIS continues to hold a certain fascination for a number of Christians, some of whom tout its alleged apologetic value, it remains fraught with significant weaknesses that deliver a critical blow to its overall soundness. Among its problems are the following:
1) There is no uniform zodiac constellation. Some claim there are twenty-four zodiac signs, while others count eight, ten, or fourteen. The oldest Babylonian charts do not even contain the complete zodiac constellation. And unlike the popular Western view, the Chinese interpreted their constellation charts with characters such as the rabbit, mouse, and dog. Moreover, the zodiac signs do not even appear above the Arctic Circle (66 degrees latitude) — which means that is there no “Gospel in the Stars” for many Eskimos, Siberians, Greenlanders, and Scandinavians. This, of course, poses a serious dilemma for GIS, according to which the stars serve as a witness to all people.
2) There is no uniform message behind the stars. As in the case of astrology, the star-formed zodiac signs can be assigned whatever meaning the interpreter decides upon; the purported messages behind the signs are completely arbitrary. In their interpretation of the constellations, for example, the Jews did not include any reference to the fall of Adam and Eve or their future seed who would become humankind’s Deliverer. They believed the sign of Scorpio represented Israel as a scorpion, drastically differing from Bullinger’s understanding of Scorpio as a sign depicting the conflict between the Deliverer and the serpent.
3) The message of the stars is out sequence. To take one example, the sign of Virgo (representing a virgin conceiving the Deliverer, the “seed of the woman”) comes before the sign of Libra (which symbolizes the fact that humankind has sinned). Yet, in the Book of Genesis the promise of the “seed of the woman” (Gen. 3:15) comes after humankind sinned (Gen. 3:1-14).
4) There is no biblical evidence to support GIS. Bullinger cites a number of Bible verses that have nothing to do with stars revealing the gospel. For instance, he interprets the word “constellation” (Mazzaroth in Hebrew and Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate) in Job 38:32 as the twelve signs of the zodiac when, in fact, the precise meaning of the term remains uncertain. But even if this verse were undeniably proven to refer to the zodiac, it does not follow that Job understood there to be twelve signs in the zodiac, or that the twelve signs are the same twelve signs we know today, or that Job believed the star signs spelled out the gospel. Other passages offered as proof for GIS only demonstrate that some heavenly bodies had been given names and were used in calculating time (e.g., Gen. 1:14; Job 9:8-9), or else simply deal with inferring the existence of the invisible Creator from the existence of the visible creation, the universe (e.g., Ps. 19; Rom. 1:19; 10:18).
Certainly, there are Bible passages that speak to the notion of deriving messages from the stars; however, these all pertain to the practice of astrology, which is sternly condemned (Isa. 47:13-14). Moreover, GIS runs contrary to the Bible’s assertion that no one understood God’s complete plan of redemption before Christ came (Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Cor. 2:7-8; Eph. 3; Col. 1:26-27; 1 Pet. 1:10-12). Indeed, Romans 10 makes it clear that the gospel is proclaimed by “preachers” (v. 14) who are “sent” (v. 15), referring not to the stars in the sky but to the Christians on the earth.

Most of Rolleston’s work is fraught with problems. Her entire case amounts to speculation based upon several questionable assumptions. Her methodology of looking for homophones in Hebrew and other ancient Semitic languages is questionable. There are problems with anachronisms, names of recent origin that Rolleston found meaning for in ancient Semitic languages. There are problems with many other words and names whose meanings and derivations are very easy to trace but which Rolleston rejected in favor of her thesis. Rolleston, Seiss, and Bullinger found it very easy to find alternate meanings in all sorts of names even though their intended meanings already existed. That is, the thesis drove the facts rather than the facts driving the thesis. This thesis led to fabrication of false history, such as conjecture of a supposedly ancient constellation, “the Desired,” that never existed. Her arrangement of the constellations into decans appears to have originated with her. If this is the case, then much of her thesis is eroded. Critical analysis of the gospel in the stars theory reveals that it relies upon embarrassingly poor scholarship.
The early church had major battles with Gnosticism, and some of the New Testament epistles battled Gnostic teachings that had crept into the church in the first century. One element of Gnosticism is an emphasis on secret knowledge. That is, knowledge not generally known to the uninitiated that leads either to salvation or to some higher plane of spiritual existence. The appeal of secret knowledge is very strong, and that allure is in evidence today. Examples include the Bible code, the da Vinci code, pyramidology, ancient astronauts, and various grand conspiracy theories.
I include the gospel in the stars in this category of secret knowledge. People become aware of the gospel in the stars by reading a book or an article, hearing a sermon, or watching a video or a presentation on the topic. This information is entirely new to them, the information is not obvious, and the entire package is wrapped in references to various Bible passages. Upon learning this new information, many people feel uplifted and encouraged, though it is not clear what the reason for this good feeling is. Somehow, just acquiring this knowledge makes many Christians feel some new validation of their faith. While well intended, this new knowledge is based upon false information, and is contrary to biblical principles.
The gospel in the stars thesis is not biblical on at least two counts. First, nowhere does Scripture clearly teach that such a message is embedded in the arrangement of the stars. One must build the case for the gospel in the stars with conjecture piled upon conjecture, so at best one can call this a plausibility argument. With no clear teaching in Scripture (or for that matter, prior to 1865), this sort of thing must fall under the categories of fables and endless genealogies ([url=https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Tim 1.4]1 Timothy 1:4[/url]). Second, the New Testament refers to the gospel as a mystery, something that had not been previously known, but is now revealed ([url=https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rom 16.25%E2%80%9326]Romans 16:25–26[/url]; [url=https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Cor 2.1%E2%80%938]1 Corinthians 2:1–8[/url]; [url=https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1 Pet 1.10%E2%80%9312]1 Peter 1:10–12[/url]). Purveyors of the gospel in the stars would have us believe that many people from ancient times knew the entire gospel story long before the New Testament, but this clearly contradicts the New Testament teaching that the gospel was a mystery—revealed at the time of Christ and His apostles.
Not only does this new knowledge not square with Scripture, it is not self-consistent. It is not consistent in that the thesis contends that the alleged gospel in the stars was needed before there was the written Word of God, but when that more clear revelation became available, the gospel in the stars was no longer necessary. If that were the case, what possible purpose could that knowledge serve today? Why would we want to return to an inferior, superseded, and admittedly garbled message today when we have the superior message so readily and effectively available?