Friday, March 20, 2015

A Christian Astronomer debunks the blood moon theory from both a scientific and a biblical perspective

An internet friend named James sent me an excellent article regarding the hoopla surrounding several astronomical events due to occur this week. The article debunks any credibility whatsoever regarding blood moons related to prophecy. It is reasoned, biblical, AND scientific. The author of the article is Dr. Hugh Ross, a Christian Astronomer. Dr Ross was asked by John Hagee Ministries to participate in Hagee's movie regarding the blood moons, knowing Ross is a skeptic, to Hagee's credit. Thus, we have a credible insider's view on every level to explain to us why the blood moons are not ushering in a new era. Here is the beginning of the article and I urge one and all to read it.

Blood Moons: An End-Times Sign? (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.reasons.org/articles/blood-moons-an-end-times-sign-part-1-of-2http://www.reasons.org/articles/blood-moons-an-end-times-sign-part-1-of-2
Four Blood Moons, a theatrical one-night event scheduled for March 23, 2015, and based on Texas megachurch pastor John Hagee’s New York Times bestseller of the same name, has garnered attention. I’m featured briefly in the film as a skeptic of Hagee’s central claim that a sequence of four total lunar eclipses signifies that “world history is about to change,” bringing about the rapid fulfillment of a biblical end-times prophecy. I’m also included in a 20-minute panel discussion on the movie that was recorded at Hagee’s San Antonio headquarters.

Hagee knew in advance my views on his claims and I’m impressed that he would allow a “skeptic” of his view to participate. For that, he is to be commended.

The biblical basis for the four blood moons claim as an eschatological event appears in Joel 2:31, which states, “The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” The scientific basis rests on the fact that often during a total lunar eclipse, the Moon, as seen from Earth’s surface, takes on an orange or red hue (see figures 1 and 2).

My greater concern centers on biblical, rather than scientific, misinterpretations of the blood-moon sign, and I will address those in part 2. First I will address the science and history of lunar eclipses.

And to get caught up on the biblical reasons debunking the blood moon theory, go here

8 comments :

  1. Elizabeth, the link isn't working for me. I wanted to share it with a facebook friend who is on the hagee-train.
    Jennifer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for wanting to share it, and for letting me know. I fixed it. It should work now...

      Delete
  2. Just be aware Ross is an old-age creationist and generally a dishonest critic of Answers in Genesis and their sister organizations, ICR and CMI. AiG has several well-written critiques of blood moon ism since last year or the year before, already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was not aware of this. Do you have some credible links that would offer substance to your charge that he is dishonest?

      Delete
    2. Some of these are a bit lengthy, but I've linked them because they cite a few examples of Hugh Ross's misleading hermeneutics.
      https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/09/27/hugh-ross-twists-the-bible-to-fit-mans-fallible-opinions/
      https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/the-dubious-apologetics-of-hugh-ross/
      https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/defense-poor-reasoning/

      As to 'dishonest critic,'

      https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/special-feature-hugh-ross-expose/ -- this is a more exhaustive critique of Ross's statements that are misleading about YECs.

      https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/03/01/when-compromise-meets-compromise/ -- this shows a connection between Reasons to Believe (Ross) and Biologos (Francis Collins, 'human genome project' lead).


      In reviewing links after about a half hour of searching, I figured it would be responsible to add this clarification: I didn't mean to imply that Ross has done something like slander of AiG, but what I remembered from what I had read, that he misrepresents the YEC position and misuses Scripture to make his arguments, checked out.

      I hope this didn't come across as disingenuous on my part. It's simply the case that I made the 'dishonest' remark off the top of my head based on a few years of stagnant memory. The more important concern that I mentioned, that of his unBiblical views, is thoroughly supported by the background reading I found and linked.

      Creation.com does a concise final summary of his interpretive errors: http://creation.com/expose-of-the-genesis-question-by-hugh-ross .

      Whereas there's no easily discoverable evidence of nastiness person-to-person, looking at the critiques of his views in one of the longer links gives ample evidence to conclude that he does, nevertheless, persistently misrepresent the alternative view. As a matter of my personality, I tend to "give people the benefit of the doubt," and assume that they're smart enough to know better, which would make them dishonest. If they're not, then they're too unintelligent to know better. And they can pick which they'd rather be.

      That would explain why my recall of Ross produced the assertion that he is dishonest. It's based on the reasonable expectation that you can't tell repeatedly corrected untruths over decades, by accident.

      My readiness to make the statement was, I believe I can conclude based on another half hour of double-checking my research, in part enabled by conflation of Biologos with Hugh Ross -- whereas Ross has been misleading as mentioned, I suspect that my memory of articles detailing more animosity is likely to do with members of the Biologos team.

      Hope this was helpful and didn't come across as a screed.

      Delete
  3. I saw Dr. Ross in the panel with Hagee and I appreciated so much seeing someone who is willing to stand alone and go against such a large tide of foolishness. I appreciate his courage. His insight and ability to stay with the important points were valuable for anyone who would hear him. I also saw an interview with him about his book on Job and was favorably impressed.

    To disagree with YEC is not the end of one's salvation or coming against the Lord.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "To disagree with YEC is not the end of one's salvation..."

      Maybe, maybe not.

      "or coming against the Lord."

      Yes indeed it is. If one disagrees with the first thing the LORD told us in the Bible then one is definitely coming against the LORD.

      Delete
  4. I thought the four blood moons were in sequence with no partial eclipse in between. yet there are two partial ones in 2015. Ignored because they don't fit?

    ReplyDelete