Thanks for the thoughtful scientific arguments to the contrary
So those who make the ludicrous claims are exempt from substantiating their statements, yet those who ask "Really?" are required to do your homework for you.
First off, you were shown in Scripture that your claims are bogus because adding a supernova doesn't blot out our sun Light + Light doesn't equal "dark as sackcloth" unless you are living in a parallel universe with its own set of physics. Second, it apocalyptic language which only the illiterate and gullible would try to understand literally.
Third, you provided nothing more than a claim that a red-giant going super nova would cause the moon to turn to blood (let alone get a red tint). Our perception of the moon's color is dependent on the atmosphere between us and the moon. Another way that the moon could appear reddish is by bending light such as when the earth gets between the moon and sun (aka total lunar eclipse) and the light from the sun is bent by earth's gravitational field, combined with leakage of light through the Earth's atmosphere giving the reflector moon a reddish tint (but not "as blood") This is an observable and repeatable phenomena.
Your claims have never been observed, can't be repeated and are purely speculative based on no known science. That makes it superstition and fable. Since the moon is a reflector, it will reflect the light that is cast upon it. From our point of observation, the supernova would have to compete with our sun and outshine it with a very deep color red, which even a red giant going nova will not do.
Fourth, it wasn't until a few years ago that scientists could even figure out how large Betelgeuse was, let alone have any idea how far it is from Earth. To this day, they can't say with any certainty that Betelgeuse is 500 or even 800 light years away since the margin of error in their best estimations is 150 light years! And according to scientists, they have no idea when it can go supernova, it could be a few years from now it can be a million years from now. That is a rather significant margin of error.
I can imagine how this went down, the journalist was interviewing a cosmologist about something and Betelgeuse came up. The scientists was probably rattling on about parsecs and angstroms, light shift and neutrinos and the liberal arts major's eyes glazed over until the scientists, after discussing a super giant's iron core, probably said somewhere that "someday it will collapse". About this time, the journalist, searching for something interesting to write an article about, heard that statement and asked the inevitable question - "Really? What would happen?" whereupon he then heard "Real Big Explosion". Being a trained journalist, he then followed up on the "What" with the "When" and heard "It could be between one year and a million years." because the cosmologist was trying to express a "No one knows" sort of answer and didn't want to actually say "No one knows" because scientists don't want to appear ignorant unless they are hussling up money for a grant.
So the journalist now has a story, he shamelessly cuts and pastes whole paragraphs from wikipedia, throws in "next year", the editor makes a headline out of it, and then Dysfunctionalists who scour the newspapers looking for any reason to scream "JESUS IS COMING" stumble across this, tie it to the Mayans getting bored and not stringing out their calendar for a few more centuries, and concludes that the earth is doomed and Jesus is coming back in 2012.
Then you go ahead and bastardize a passage in Scripture to feed this lunacy and then people like me who are tired of nominal Christians embarrassing us with this insipid date setting jumps on you and begs that you stop.
That is how we got here.
>>First off, you were shown in Scripture that your claims are bogus because adding a supernova doesn’t blot out our sun Light + Light doesn’t equal “dark as sackcloth” unless you are living in a parallel universe with its own set of physics. Second, it apocalyptic language which only the illiterate and gullible would try to understand literally.
So, you’re insulting me “it” instead of arguing.
>>Third, you provided nothing more than a claim that a red-giant going super nova would cause the moon to turn to blood (let alone get a red tint). Our perception of the moon’s color is dependent on the atmosphere between us and the moon. Another way that the moon could appear reddish is by bending light such as when the earth gets between the moon and sun (aka total lunar eclipse) and the light from the sun is bent by earth’s gravitational field, combined with leakage of light through the Earth’s atmosphere giving the reflector moon a reddish tint (but not “as blood”) This is an observable and repeatable phenomena.
Ok, so every lunar eclipse is the apocalypse.
>>Your claims have never been observed, can’t be repeated and are purely speculative based on no known science. That makes it superstition and fable.
Same as evolution through mutation to more beneficial genes or into a new species. Wow, thanks.
>>Then you go ahead and bastardize a passage in Scripture to feed this lunacy and then people like me who are tired of nominal Christians embarrassing us with this insipid date setting jumps on you and begs that you stop.
And again I say “it reminds of this verse.” So what’s your point? It reminded me of a verse. Your argument still seems to be a senseless attack against a quoting of a verse that really may or may not have any relation to the supernova of Betelgeuse.
Brew some tea. Sit back. Relax.