#biblical interpretation

Stars in the Bible have been used as a way to talk about gods guidance and often when stars fall it symbolizes times of cosmic upheaval, divine judgment, or the collapse of earthly kingdoms. Such as in Revelation 6:13. So both stories inciting incident being the disappearance/dimming of the stars in itself is theological.

Grace's name quite literally being named GRACE and Being carried to be the savior of humanity by a ship called THE HAIL MARY! Grace is immediately separated from the rest of humanity with his only connections being to the children he teaches. Now this textually places him as a more traditional Christ figure.

Grace while never literally dying does die symbolically. Grace was placed on a ship with 2 others knowing that they were never going to return, leaving behind whatever life they had before, but the fact that there was two people with him is important because it mirrors the crusifiction. Christ in the Bible was not crusified alone, he was not special in his death, but instead was crusified with two criminals.

There's also the idea of diametrically opposed salvation. Salvation, or the return of the stars in PHM is a group effort, something that cannot be done alone but instead must be a collaboration with the care of rocky his friend symbolizing that salvation is not a one man journey but something that is born out of a love for others. That part of salvation was Grace figuring out what he needed to do to offer that salvation. It is not he needs to die but that he needs to continue to live on off of earth.

Simon is harder but that's because the text doesn't treat him as a traditional Christ figure but as HISTORICAL Christ figure.

Simon is a convict... A heretic to the COI (very similar to the roman empire) who as a punishment for his crimes is being sacrificed in an ocean of blood FOR THE BETTERMENT OF HUMANITY.

Simon is also a biblical name as well, meaning "God has Heard" and being one of the most common names in the Bible, Simon Peter being the one of the most important as he was the disciple instructed to lead the church after Christs crusifiction.

The leader of Eden (a reference to the Biblical garden) is called "the father" but the father has abandoned Simon, Echoing the crusifiction. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Simons salvation is much darker than Grace's though, part of it is that he must suffer, he must suffer through an ocean of humanities sin. a reference to the blood sacrifice of christ. Searching in the dark for some light, hope, of continuing, and when he finds the black box of the sm-8, this guidebook of how to navigate through this blood ocean, how to save people he does what he must to give this to humanity, Praying to his mother, "Please keep this safe okay Mom? it's more than me.... It's more than me." Ultimately choosing to subcome to death to save the rest of humanity.

And In each story there is a woman who has to do what is "nesseary to save humanity" and by doing so place Grace/Simon in a position to be sacrificed for the good of humanity. In ironlung the woman's name is Ava in Phm it's Eva.

That's really similar huh? I wonder what these women could be a reference to. THE FIRST WOMAN EVE!

Think about it, Eve ate the fruit of knowledge, thus insuring humanities survival, but also sacrificing her own ability to live without sin.

Eva for her choice to sacrifice grace is put into prison for life BUT she doesn't regret it as she has found forgiveness in the success of Project hail Mary and Grace.

BUT AVA IS A DIFFERENT STORY Ava is Sacrificed herself, she knows she will not find absolution in Simon's success and Goes down in the ironlung herself and dies before him.

Hello!

I am not a biblical scholar or even aspiring to be one. Unfortunately, my answer will not be satisfactory.

What we do know is that if there were any jokes written in the Bible, we wouldn't necessarily get them right away. In the same way when we watch old comedian acts, we don't understand the humor unless we know the historical context that makes it funny.

Saul flew into a rage against Jonathan. “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!” he shouted. “I know that you side with the son of Jesse—to your shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness!

I have believed for a long time that this verse indicates that Saul knows (or at least thinks) that Jonathan and David have a sexual relationship and is condemning Jonathan for it. (For the record, not because it’s a homosexual relationship, but because Jonathan is siding with the enemy. In fact nothing in the David-Jonathan narrative ever suggests that they would be condemned being two men in a romantic and/or sexual relationship.)

“But Vee, why do you think that? Saul doesn’t mention anything about sex here.”

Well, in the Hebrew Bible, nakedness basically means sex. Sometimes it can be taken more literally (as in Genesis 9:22-23, where it might mean rape or might mean simple embarrassment over being seen nakedness) but most of the time it means sex, especially illicit sex. This is most well-known from Leviticus 18, where one is commanded not to “uncover the nakedness” of one’s family members. This chapter also includes several examples of “[Person A]’s nakedness” being used as a stand-in for sex with a relative of Person A, rather than Person A themselves. For example: “Do not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is the nakedness of your father.” This indicates not that sex with your father’s wife is literally sex with your father, but that this is a sexual act that will bring shame upon your father, mainly because the wife’s sexuality is under the father’s protection.

I posit, then, that when Saul mentions “the shame of your mother’s nakedness” he is referring to a sexual act that Jonathan has done which will bring shame upon his mother, that somehow relates to his relationship with David. Why does having sex with David bring shame upon his mother? Well, honestly, I think Saul is kind of projecting and means it brings shame upon Saul himself (or both parents together).

I also think that Saul referring to David as the “son of Jesse” is interesting here — perhaps because David’s sexuality is still under his father’s protection? Well, admittedly David is already married here, but assuming that a man’s sexuality can’t be under his wife’s protection his father would still be his authority. And you know, it would also be Jonathan having sex with his sister’s husband — this isn’t explicitly mentioned in Leviticus, but “uncovering the nakedness” of your brother’s wife is prohibited, so I think you could extrapolate brother’s wife -> sister’s husband, it is the nakedness of your sister -> your sister’s nakedness is the nakedness of your mother. Or something like that!

Now, there is a much more common interpretation of this verse that I want to present. This says that “[Jonathan’s] mother’s nakedness” is a reference to Jonathan’s birth, or specifically Jonathan’s conception. Basically, Saul is cursing that Jonathan was ever born (or along those lines). Combined with the first half of the verse — “son of a perverse, rebellious woman” — you can see this as Saul basically calling Jonathan “son of a bitch”.

I think this interpretation holds a lot of water, though not necessarily more than my interpretation. However, when I was looking more into this interpretation I found a really interesting midrash in the Tz’enah Ur’enah (old Yiddish Bible+commentary, kind of, you should just look into it) that seeks to expand on why Saul is insulting Jonathan’s mother (his wife!!) and how he’s comparing the two of them. The gist of the midrash is more or less that Achinoam (Jonathan’s mother) asked Saul out, rather than waiting for Saul to approach her as was proper. The midrash therefore says that Jonathan is too much like his mother: “[Achinoam] was brazen at the dance and you [Jonathan] are also brazen to me [Saul]”. Ok… I can see what they were going for, but why compare Achinoam’s immodest sexuality to Jonathan’s supposed political opposition?

And here, I posit again: Achinoam’s wrongdoing in this midrash is not simply being “brazen”, but going against sexual norms. “Approaching” someone who she shouldn’t approach, or in a way she shouldn’t have approached him. And now Saul is comparing Achinoam’s actions there to his mother’s? His perverse, (sexually) rebellious mother?? In a roundabout way, we come back to Saul accusing Jonathan of illicit sexual acts, somehow involving David…

Few biblical footnotes have generated as much fascination (or as much confident speculation) as the Nephilim. They appear briefly, cryptically, and at strategically unsettling moments in the biblical story. And then they vanish. No clarity. No genealogy. No real explanation. Just enough detail to raise questions and not nearly enough to settle them. Which, of course, is why we keep talking about…

Part One: Why the Book of Revelation Speaks in Symbols

There is a reason the Book of Revelation has never rested quietly.

For nearly two thousand years, it has unsettled readers rather than comforted them. It has divided interpreters, fueled endless speculation, and inspired fear, urgency, obsession, and certainty all at once. Unlike other sacred texts, Revelation does not explain itself. It does not teach patiently. It does not move in clean lines. Instead, it confronts the reader with beasts rising from chaos, seals being broken, numbers that refuse to settle, and cosmic upheavals that feel both near and unreachable.

Every generation approaches it convinced that now, finally, the code will be broken.

And yet, the confusion remains.

This persistence of opacity raises a deeper question, one that is rarely asked honestly.

What if the difficulty of Revelation is not a problem of language, but a problem of authority

In every major prophetic tradition, revelation was never meant to stand alone. It always arrived alongside a living authority responsible for preserving, clarifying, and applying divine intent across generations. This series begins from that premise.

Not to dismiss Revelation as symbolic fantasy.

Not to claim superiority over other traditions.

But to take the text seriously enough to ask why it speaks the way it does.

When Prophecy Loses Its Voice

The Book of Revelation emerges at a moment of rupture.

Its author, a figure known as John, writes from exile on the island of Patmos. This is often treated as a simple historical detail, but it carries far more weight than that. Exile here is not just geographical. It is a condition. A separation from power, from center, and more importantly, from continuity.

Jesus has departed.

The foundational event has occurred.

The message survives.

But something essential is missing.

The early community retains memory, scripture, and belief, yet it no longer possesses a universally acknowledged figure endowed with divinely mandated authority to finalize meaning. There is no uncontested successor empowered to declare which interpretations are binding, how unfolding history must be read, and where prophecy ultimately points.

When revelation continues without recognized succession, memory remains but direction fractures. The community knows what it believes, but no longer has an unquestioned voice to determine how belief must confront unfolding history.

This condition can be described as hermeneutical orphanhood.

Revelation remains.

The living interpreter does not.

Why Clarity Becomes Dangerous

In such a condition, explicit prophecy is no longer safe.

A clear and linear revelation naming powers, timelines, and outcomes would be immediately exposed to suppression by empire, distortion by factions, or premature collapse under unfolding events. More dangerously, it would be left to human arbitration. Competing interpretations would multiply endlessly, with no final voice capable of settling disputes.

When authority collapses, clarity becomes a liability.

Symbolism, then, is not an aesthetic flourish.

It is a survival mechanism.

Images endure where instructions fail.

Archetypes survive regimes.

Numbers outlive empires.

By compressing meaning into symbol, Revelation preserves its core truths. That oppression is temporary. That divine justice is inevitable. That history is not random. The reuse of imagery drawn from earlier prophetic traditions is not imitation, but deliberate embedding within an established symbolic language. The message survives precisely because it is not exhausted.

Yet survival is not completion.

The Cost of Preservation

A sealed vision can endure.

But it cannot conclude.

Revelation sustains vigilance without orientation. It demands watchfulness without identification. It promises judgment, yet withholds its mechanics. The result is a text that endures across centuries but never settles. A book endlessly interpreted, yet never resolved.

This preservation through symbol does not imply the absence of divine guidance. Rather, it signals its relocation beyond the immediate horizon of the community preserving the text.

Prophecy has been held in protective stasis.

A Different Model of Continuity

This series contrasts that condition with a different paradigm. One in which revelation does not end with symbolic preservation, but continues through recognized succession.

In this model, symbolism is not a destination. It is a phase.

A living guide inherits the prophetic legacy through succession, carrying the mandate to translate symbol into identification, typology into history, and expectation into sequence. Earlier revelations are not endlessly allegorized. They are clarified.

Here, eschatological knowledge is not speculative theology. It is operational guidance for a community expected to pass through trials with orientation rather than confusion.

From this perspective, the enduring ambiguity of Revelation does not indict the text.

It points to a missing voice.

What This Series Will Unfold

This first part establishes the foundation. Why Revelation is encrypted at all.

In the parts that follow, we will explore:

• Why end time prophecy consistently centers on lineage rather than isolated individuals

• How figures hinted at in Revelation appear elsewhere with clarity and continuity

• Why symbols such as seals, false saviors, and the Lamb demand authoritative interpretation

• And how unresolved cries for justice find completion only when continuity is restored

Revelation does not fail to speak.

It speaks in the only language possible when authority is absent.

The seal has been preserved.

The question is not whether there is meaning, but through whom divine authority chose to safeguard its key.

Chapter End Hook

In Part Two, we will turn to a question Revelation never resolves on its own. Why divine victory is always promised through lineage, and never through isolated saviors.

Credit and Acknowledgment

This series was inspired by a detailed Urdu language lecture published on YouTube by the channel Blend of History. That presentation explored parallels between the Book of Revelation and Islamic eschatological traditions preserved through the family of the Prophet Muhammad Peace and Blessings upon him and his Purified Household.

While the structure, language, and analysis presented here are original and independently developed, intellectual honesty requires acknowledging that the initial spark and thematic direction came from that source.

Spend any solid amount of time with scripture and you'll run into something that perplexes, disturbs, or downright horrifies you. Many of us have walked away from the Bible or from Christianity in general, sometimes temporarily and sometimes permanently, after encountering these stories. So how do we face them, wrestle them, and seek God's presence in (or in spite of) them?

In her book Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again, the late Rachel Held Evans spends a whole chapter on the "war stories" of Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel and Kings. She starts with how most teachers in her conservative Christian upbringing shut her down every time she tried to name the horror she felt reading of violence, rape, and ethnic cleansing; I share an excerpt from that part of the chapter over in this post.

That excerpt ends with Evans deciding that she needed to grapple with these stories, or lose her faith entirely.

...But then I ended the excerpt, with the hope that folks would go read all of Inspired for themselves — and I still very much recommend doing so! The whole book is incredibly helpful for relearning how to read scripture in a way that honors its historical context and divine inspiration, and takes seriously how misreadings bring harm to individuals and whole people groups.

But I know not everyone will read the book, for a variety of reasons, and that's okay. So I want to include a long excerpt from the rest of the chapter, where Evans provides cultural context and history that helps us understand why those war stories are in there; and then seeks to find where God's inspiration is among those "human fingerprints."