Let's examine Revelation 20:4 yet again.

[Marty fox]

GOD said "LOOK UP"

What do we know about the depth of space and the stars = can't count them all = beyond billions and trillions maybe

Does this offend you? That with GOD all things are possible? = you find that offensive?

What are you talking about do you even follow our conversation or are you purposely being funny because I can’t carry on this conversation anymore?

God said look up at the stars not the angels


With the logic your using here if the Bible said God said look up and count the angels it would mean stars

 

[Davidpt]

It says innumerable which means uncountable etc. I think that could be trillions, or more, or less. The word can mean several things including a number so vast we cannot comprehend it which is why many translations use innumerable.



Why is millions ok with you but not trillions? It could be either, or both...

One thing seems obvious. There are at least billions of angels since it makes zero sense that there are more people in the world than there are angels.

 

[claninja]

Therefore, it is in vain for the Preterists to insist that the context proves they are interpreting verse 30 correctly when the context isn't even remotely involving 70 AD and unbelieving Jews that failed to flee the city before the Romans attacked them and the city.

The context includes the following:

• Matthew 24:1-3 As Jesus left the temple and was walking away, His disciples came up to Him to point out its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” He replied. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,”they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

To argue the context doesn't "even remotely involve 70 ad" is absurd.

 

[David in NJ]

My own words what? I don’t know what you are trying to get at?

Good Morning

Today is a New Day in Christ

Begin again, but only what's on your mind for Today that you would like to communicate to me - thank you

 

[claninja]

Good Morning

Today is a New Day in Christ

Begin again, but only what's on your mind for Today that you would like to communicate to me - thank you

I was asking if you would explain what you meant when you said to me “by your own words”

 

[David in NJ]

I was asking if you would explain by what you meant when you said to me “by your own words”

i'm Way past that

Today is a new day = let us move Forward in Christ

 

[Marty fox]

It says innumerable which means uncountable etc. I think that could be trillions, or more, or less. The word can mean several things including a number so vast we cannot comprehend it which is why many translations use innumerable.



Why is millions ok with you but not trillions? It could be either, or both...

I think millions because it says thousands upon thousands, but it could be possible that's its trillions but weather millions or trillions it really doesn't matter.

My point was that Dave NJ made a statement that it is trillions and it doesn't say that. Then Dave NJ says that the stars God told Abraham to go outside and look up at are angels. After all of this he claims that I have an insistent unbelief in scripture.

 

[David in NJ]

I think millions because it says thousands upon thousands, but it could be possible that's its trillions but weather millions or trillions it really doesn't matter.

My point was that Dave NJ made a statement that it is trillions and it doesn't say that. Then Dave NJ says that the stars God told Abraham to go outside and look up at are angels. After all of this he claims that I have an insistent unbelief in scripture.

Oh Marty you slipped and and FELL - TODAY

Then the LORD brought Abram outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.”
And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”

Your question began with asking "How do i know the number?" When i said "likely" trillians

Now we know more then trillians as i am sure God also said in another place:
And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky
and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

Stay together Marty so that we stay together in Christ.

 

[Marty fox]

Oh Marty you slipped and and FELL - TODAY

Then the LORD brought Abram outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.”
And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”

Your question began with asking "How do i know the number?" When i said "likely" trillians

Now we know more then trillians as i am sure God also said in another place:
And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky
and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

Stay together Marty so that we stay together in Christ.

But that's not talking about angels that's my point.

At this point lets end this conversation because it seams that you are actually playing with me and not having a serious conversation.

 

[David in NJ]

But that's not talking about angels that's my point.

At this point lets end this conversation because it seams that you are actually playing with me and not having a serious conversation.

Again = you left out the other scripture(s) that i gave you on this = such as:

1“At that time Michael shall stand up,
The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people;
And there shall be a time of trouble,
Such as never was since there was a nation,
Even to that time.
And at that time your people shall be delivered,
Every one who is found written in the book.
2And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3Those who are wise shall shine
Like the brightness of the firmament,
And those who turn many to righteousness
Like the stars forever and ever.

DIRECT CONNECTION by the LORD of stars to angels = Revelation 12:4

And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth.

 

[Davidpt]

The context includes the following:

• Matthew 24:1-3 As Jesus left the temple and was walking away, His disciples came up to Him to point out its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” He replied. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,”they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

To argue the context doesn't "even remotely involve 70 ad" is absurd.

Let's see if it is absurd, except I realize I can't count on you being objective, thus being intellectually honest about it, because doctrinal bias will be standing in your way, obviously. And the same goes for @Marty fox, in this case, in the event he wants to chime in here.


Before we even get to verse 30 we see the following.

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.


And that is applicable to 70 AD exactly how? Who could read that, including Preterists, then insist they are being intellectually honest, and then conclude that the context involves why God decided to have wrath on unbelieving Jews and their city leading up to 70 AD? Apparently, what is recorded in verses 23-26 is being applied to the era of time involving verses 15-22. But even if it isn't, it would then mean what is recorded in verses 23-26 are being applied to a time period post what verses 15-22 are involving. And clearly, verse 27 is meaning the same coming verse 30 is meaning. Either way, whether verses 23-26 apply to verses 15-22 or not, verses 23-26 have zero to do with why God decided to have wrath upon unbelieving Jews and their city leading up to 70 AD.

In order to arrive at this coming in verse 30, verses 15-22 have to precede it, and assuming verses 23-26 are not meaning during verses 15-22, that era of time has to be fulfilled as well. Even if verses 15-22 pertain to 70 AD, though I disagree they do, and that if verses 23-26 have to follow verses 15-22, it couldn't possibly still be involving the era of time pertaining to 70 AD when the coming meant in verse 30 takes place.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


You do see that the text indicates Christ comes in great glory as opposed to, I guess, ordinary glory. Right? What then was the great glory that 70 AD revealed about Christ allegedly coming in judgment in 70 AD?

great
polus
pol-oos'
including the forms from the alternate pollos; (singular) much (in any respect) or (plural) many; neuter (singular) as adverbial, largely; neuter (plural) as adverb or noun often, mostly, largely:--abundant, + altogether, common, + far (passed, spent), (+ be of a) great (age, deal, -ly, while), long, many, much, oft(-en (-times)), plenteous, sore, straitly. Compare pleistoV - pleistos 4118, pleiwn - pleion 4119.

glory
doxa
dox'-ah
from the base of dokew - dokeo 1380; glory (as very apparent), in a wide application (literal or figurative, objective or subjective):--dignity, glory(-ious), honour, praise, worship.


I wonder how many unbelieving Jews were praising and worshiping Christ for Him having come in great glory on their behalf in order to destroy them, their temple, and their city? After all, isn't that something glory involves? honour, praise, worship

But if we make verse 30 be meaning the 2nd coming, at least the coming in great glory makes sense in light of the following, for example.

2 Thessalonians 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

But who cares? Right? Preterists apparently don't if they persist insisting that verse 30 fits the first century and 70 AD, not His bodily return in the end of this age instead.

 

[claninja]

Let's see if it is absurd, except I realize I can't count on you being objective, thus being intellectually honest about it, because doctrinal bias will be standing in your way, obviously. And the same goes for @Marty fox, in this case, in the event he wants to chime in here.


Before we even get to verse 30 we see the following.

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.


And that is applicable to 70 AD exactly how? Who could read that, including Preterists, then insist they are being intellectually honest, and then conclude that the context involves why God decided to have wrath on unbelieving Jews and their city leading up to 70 AD? Apparently, what is recorded in verses 23-26 is being applied to the era of time involving verses 15-22. But even if it isn't, it would then mean what is recorded in verses 23-26 are being applied to a time period post what verses 15-22 are involving. And clearly, verse 27 is meaning the same coming verse 30 is meaning. Either way, whether verses 23-26 apply to verses 15-22 or not, verses 23-26 have zero to do with why God decided to have wrath upon unbelieving Jews and their city leading up to 70 AD.

In order to arrive at this coming in verse 30, verses 15-22 have to precede it, and assuming verses 23-26 are not meaning during verses 15-22, that era of time has to be fulfilled as well. Even if verses 15-22 pertain to 70 AD, though I disagree they do, and that if verses 23-26 have to follow verses 15-22, it couldn't possibly still be involving the era of time pertaining to 70 AD when the coming meant in verse 30 takes place.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


You do see that the text indicates Christ comes in great glory as opposed to, I guess, ordinary glory. Right? What then was the great glory that 70 AD revealed about Christ allegedly coming in judgment in 70 AD?

great
polus
pol-oos'
including the forms from the alternate pollos; (singular) much (in any respect) or (plural) many; neuter (singular) as adverbial, largely; neuter (plural) as adverb or noun often, mostly, largely:--abundant, + altogether, common, + far (passed, spent), (+ be of a) great (age, deal, -ly, while), long, many, much, oft(-en (-times)), plenteous, sore, straitly. Compare pleistoV - pleistos 4118, pleiwn - pleion 4119.

glory
doxa
dox'-ah
from the base of dokew - dokeo 1380; glory (as very apparent), in a wide application (literal or figurative, objective or subjective):--dignity, glory(-ious), honour, praise, worship.


I wonder how many unbelieving Jews were praising and worshiping Christ for Him having come in great glory on their behalf in order to destroy them, their temple, and their city? After all, isn't that something glory involves? honour, praise, worship

But if we make verse 30 be meaning the 2nd coming, at least the coming in great glory makes sense in light of the following, for example.

2 Thessalonians 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

But who cares? Right? Preterists apparently don't if they persist insisting that verse 30 fits the first century and 70 AD, not His bodily return in the end of this age instead.

I said verses 1–3 are applicable, at least in part, to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, because they specifically mention the Temple buildings that the disciples literally pointed out , to which Jesus responded, "do you see all these things? truly not one stone will be upon another.”

In response, WHY IN THE WORLD are you jumping all over the place — from 2 Thessalonians, to the definition of glory, to verses 23–28, to unbelieving Jews, etc.? This is a hard to follow and convoluted non sequitur.

It seems your argument boils down to this: because you interpret verse 30 as the literal, visible, physical, bodily descension of Christ (the Second Coming), you conclude that verses 1–3 cannot possibly refer to the Temple’s destruction.

But when reading any narrative, you don’t jump to the middle of the story to reinterpret the beginning. You start at the beginning, understand the setting and events, and let the story unfold. The same principle applies to Matthew 24:1–2: the disciples’ question and Jesus’ statement about the Temple are the starting point of the discourse, and their meaning is determined by the immediate context — not by assumptions about verse 30. Using verse 30 to reinterpret the opening verses is unsound retroactive reasoning.

Again, from Vs 1-3 we know Jesus was talking about the temple buildings in front of him. History confirms they were destroyed.

 

[Davidpt]

I think millions because it says thousands upon thousands, but it could be possible that's its trillions but weather millions or trillions it really doesn't matter.

My point was that Dave NJ made a statement that it is trillions and it doesn't say that. Then Dave NJ says that the stars God told Abraham to go outside and look up at are angels. After all of this he claims that I have an insistent unbelief in scripture.

Which is bigger? The planet earth or the universe? If billions of people can fit on a tiny spec in the universe, meaning the earth, are we to believe that the entire universe does not consist of trillions of angels, if not more? If humans were living on other planets and that 8 billion humans were living on each planet, 125 planets alone would already equal a trillion humans. Yet, even 125 planets would still be a spec compared to the size of the universe, where I assume is likely endlessness. Assuming there are at least 125 planets in the universe. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Maybe there is even more? Who knows? It's not like man can see everything in the universe. Man certainly can't see heaven from earth below.

Therefore, that there are trillions of angels, even that might be understating it?

 

[Marty fox]

Which is bigger? The planet earth or the universe? If billions of people can fit on a tiny spec in the universe, meaning the earth, are we to believe that the entire universe does not consist of trillions of angels, if not more? If humans were living on other planets and that 8 billion humans were living on each planet, 125 planets alone would already equal a trillion humans. Yet, even 125 planets would still be a spec compared to the size of the universe, where I assume is likely endlessness. Assuming there are at least 125 planets in the universe. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Maybe there is even more? Who knows? It's not like man can see everything in the universe. Man certainly can't see heaven from earth below.

Therefore, that there are trillions of angels, even that might be understating it?

Did you see my point that it doesn.t really matter and why I was saying it?

 

[WPM]

Which is bigger? The planet earth or the universe? If billions of people can fit on a tiny spec in the universe, meaning the earth, are we to believe that the entire universe does not consist of trillions of angels, if not more? If humans were living on other planets and that 8 billion humans were living on each planet, 125 planets alone would already equal a trillion humans. Yet, even 125 planets would still be a spec compared to the size of the universe, where I assume is likely endlessness. Assuming there are at least 125 planets in the universe. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Maybe there is even more? Who knows? It's not like man can see everything in the universe. Man certainly can't see heaven from earth below.

Therefore, that there are trillions of angels, even that might be understating it?

Who cares? Move on!

 

[Davidpt]

I said verses 1–3 are applicable, at least in part, to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, because they specifically mention the Temple buildings that the disciples literally pointed out , to which Jesus responded, "do you see all these things? truly not one stone will be upon another.”

In response, WHY IN THE WORLD are you jumping all over the place — from 2 Thessalonians, to the definition of glory, to verses 23–28, to unbelieving Jews, etc.? This is a hard to follow and convoluted non sequitur.

It seems your argument boils down to this: because you interpret verse 30 as the literal, visible, physical, bodily descension of Christ (the Second Coming), you conclude that verses 1–3 cannot possibly refer to the Temple’s destruction.

But when reading any narrative, you don’t jump to the middle of the story to reinterpret the beginning. You start at the beginning, understand the setting and events, and let the story unfold. The same principle applies to Matthew 24:1–2: the disciples’ question and Jesus’ statement about the Temple are the starting point of the discourse, and their meaning is determined by the immediate context — not by assumptions about verse 30. Using verse 30 to reinterpret the opening verses is unsound retroactive reasoning.

Again, from Vs 1-3 we know Jesus was talking about the temple buildings in front of him. History confirms they were destroyed.

Let me explain then, at least, as to my reasoning.

Why do some interpreters argue in this manner? Via earlier context that is no longer relevant to later context? Jesus has the right to move beyond 70 AD in the Discourse. He is not obligated to stay within the first century leading up to 70 AD, all throughout the Discourse. Especially when, for example---until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled(Luke 21:24)--is one thing of many that has to be fulfilled before the generation in question meant, can pass away.

It is clearly absurd to argue that the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled and that we have been in the times of the Jews ever since. After all, if there are only Jews and Gentiles, and that the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled, that can logically only mean one thing then. We are in the times of the Jews if meaning before His 2nd coming.

Yet I showed in the post you are addressing that the context involving verse 30 is not context involving unbelieving Jews, their temple, and their city, in the first century involving 70 AD. Therefore, any earlier context pertaining to unbelieving Jews, their temple, and their city, in the first century involving 70 AD, is not still relevant if Jesus has moved beyond that era of time in the Discourse. You cannot possibly make verses 23-26 fit the reason 70 AD happened. And that's an even bigger problem if verses 23-26 are involving verses 15-22.

But even if they aren't involving verses 15-22, that means verses 23-26 have to be fulfilled after verses 15-22 have been fulfilled, before the coming in verse 30 can be fulfilled. Therefore, even looking at it like that, it's absurd that the coming in verse 30 could be involving 70 AD at that point, assuming verses 15-22 are involving 70 AD, when verses 23-26 would have to be fulfilled before verse 30 can be fulfilled, regardless. Verses 23-26 already don't fit 70 AD. And it is even better for your position that it is meaning after 70 AD, which then divorces the coming meant in verse 30 entirely from that of 70 AD, per that scenario?


Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


Compare verse 27 with verses 23-26. It is plainly obvious, that no coming of Christ happens, in any sense, during when verses 23-26 are meaning, period. Thus nothing to dispute, nothing to debate. And that the coming meant in verse 27 has to be the same coming meant in verse 30. Therefore, verses 23-26 have to precede the coming in verse 30 no matter how you look at it. And that verses 23-26 have zero to do with why the Jews, their temple, and their city, were attacked and destroyed by Romans at the time. It's not even remotely the same context.

 

[ewq1938]

I think millions because it says thousands upon thousands, but it could be possible that's its trillions but weather millions or trillions it really doesn't matter.

Right. I only stepped in to show there are innumerable angels.

 

[claninja]

Let me explain then, at least, as to my reasoning.

Why do some interpreters argue in this manner? Via earlier context that is no longer relevant to later context? Jesus has the right to move beyond 70 AD in the Discourse. He is not obligated to stay within the first century leading up to 70 AD, all throughout the Discourse. Especially when, for example---until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled(Luke 21:24)--is one thing of many that has to be fulfilled before the generation in question meant, can pass away.

It is clearly absurd to argue that the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled and that we have been in the times of the Jews ever since. After all, if there are only Jews and Gentiles, and that the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled, that can logically only mean one thing then. We are in the times of the Jews if meaning before His 2nd coming.

Yet I showed in the post you are addressing that the context involving verse 30 is not context involving unbelieving Jews, their temple, and their city, in the first century involving 70 AD. Therefore, any earlier context pertaining to unbelieving Jews, their temple, and their city, in the first century involving 70 AD, is not still relevant if Jesus has moved beyond that era of time in the Discourse. You cannot possibly make verses 23-26 fit the reason 70 AD happened. And that's an even bigger problem if verses 23-26 are involving verses 15-22.

But even if they aren't involving verses 15-22, that means verses 23-26 have to be fulfilled after verses 15-22 have been fulfilled, before the coming in verse 30 can be fulfilled. Therefore, even looking at it like that, it's absurd that the coming in verse 30 could be involving 70 AD at that point, assuming verses 15-22 are involving 70 AD, when verses 23-26 would have to be fulfilled before verse 30 can be fulfilled, regardless. Verses 23-26 already don't fit 70 AD. And it is even better for your position that it is meaning after 70 AD, which then divorces the coming meant in verse 30 entirely from that of 70 AD, per that scenario?


Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


Compare verse 27 with verses 23-26. It is plainly obvious, that no coming of Christ happens, in any sense, during when verses 23-26 are meaning, period. Thus nothing to dispute, nothing to debate. And that the coming meant in verse 27 has to be the same coming meant in verse 30. Therefore, verses 23-26 have to precede the coming in verse 30 no matter how you look at it. And that verses 23-26 have zero to do with why the Jews, their temple, and their city, were attacked and destroyed by Romans at the time. It's not even remotely the same context.

I guess I’m confused as to why you are appealing to vs 23-26? There’s nothing there that demands those events could not or did not happen prior to or around 70ad.

Additionally, I’m not really sure why you are appealing outside of Matthew 24 to Luke 21, when we are talking about the context of Matthew 24?

Neither of these address the fact that at the beginning of Matthew 24, the disciples point out the literal temple buildings and then Jesus says “do you see all things, there shall not be one stone upon another”. Then the disciples ask “when”, and Jesus, in Vs 4, kicks off the answer to the disciples questions. So grammatically and contextually, the olivet discourse is at least, in part, a response to the question of when the temple would be destroyed.

 

[David in NJ]

I guess I’m confused as to why you are appealing to vs 23-26? There’s nothing there that demands those events could not or did not happen prior to or around 70ad.

Additionally, I’m not really sure why you are appealing outside of Matthew 24 to Luke 21, when we are talking about the context of Matthew 24?

Neither of these address the fact that at the beginning of Matthew 24, the disciples point out the literal temple buildings and then Jesus says “do you see all things, there shall not be one stone upon another”. Then the disciples ask “when”, and Jesus, in Vs 4, kicks off the answer to the disciples questions. So grammatically and contextually, the olivet discourse is at least, in part, a response to the question of when the temple would be destroyed.

The temple being destroyed is SEPARATE from the "When is the sign of your coming" = it is not included with His 2nd Coming

 

[TribulationSigns]

This is my speculation based on Scripture = could be more then trillions

Isaiah 40:26
Look up into the heavens. Who created all the stars? He brings them out like an army, one after another, calling each by its name. Because of his great power and incomparable strength, not a single one is missing.

Psalm 147
1Hallelujah!
How good it is to sing praises to our God,
how pleasant and lovely to praise Him!
2The LORD builds up Jerusalem;
He gathers the exiles of Israel.
3He heals the brokenhearted
and binds up their wounds.
4He determines the number of the stars;
He calls them each by name.
5Great is our Lord, and mighty in power;
His understanding has no limit.

Foolish.

That interpretation of yours is incorrect and ignores the context of Psalm 147.

The passage is not about astronomical objects or countless celestial beings. The subject is consistent throughout: the LORD rebuilding Jerusalem, gathering the exiles of Israel, and healing the brokenhearted (Ps. 147:2–3).

The reference to “stars” must be read within this redemptive framework. Throughout Scripture, stars symbolize God’s people, those whom He knows, calls, and appoints:

• Genesis 15:5 — Abraham’s descendants likened to stars
• Daniel 12:3 — the righteous shine like stars
• Revelation 1:20 — stars represent God’s appointed messengers

God “calls them each by name” because they are chosen, redeemed, and known by Him, fulfilled in Christ—the true Israel composed of both Old and New Testament saints.

Psalm 147 is a song about the covenant restoration, not speculation about angels floating in physical cosmos. To read it otherwise is to detach verse 4 from the clear meaning of verses 2–3.