Starship Asterisk*

neufer wrote:Star of Bethlehem?

Case wrote:

neufer wrote:Star of Bethlehem?

I'm not buying into the planetary alignment perceived as "a new star".
When the writer wrote about "a new star", the schooled travelers saw something that wasn't there before, like a comet or a (super)nova.
With planets, one can see them getting closer to each other every few days. Even shepherds in the field, without any science education, would be able to name them. No sudden new star in the sky with a planetary alignment.

Casper on the Caspian at sunrise  separation ~ 0.684°
Fri 2008 Feb 1 4:04

              Right                   Distance    From 53°45'N 38°50'E:
            Ascension    Declination      (AU)   Altitude Azimuth

Sun         20h 56m 27s   -17° 17.4'     0.985   -10.141  -74.533 Set
Venus       18h 41m 41s   -22° 21.8'     1.337     2.628  -45.030 Up
Jupiter     18h 43m 15s   -22° 56.6'     6.049     1.947  -45.090 Up
...........................................
Casper on the Caspian at sunset   separation ~ 0.034°
Tue -1 Jun 17 19:45

              Right                   Distance    From 53°45'N 38°50'E:
            Ascension    Declination      (AU)   Altitude Azimuth
Sun          5h 27m 59s   +23° 29.4'     1.017   -10.081  157.992 Set
Venus        8h 43m  9s   +19° 27.3'     0.655     5.799  115.319 Up
Jupiter      8h 43m 17s   +19° 27.0'     6.078     5.814  115.288 Up

• Sky Guy: What’s important about star of Bethlehem is its message, not its science
  
  By Thomas R. Webber
  Monday, December 24, 2007
  
  http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/dec/2 ... hem-its-m/
  
  One of the more popular and commercialized symbols of Christmas is the star of Bethlehem that led the Magi from Persia to Jerusalem.Indeed, many planetariums offer holiday programs focused on this theme. Recent publications in astronomy, history and theology have brought the debate over the Christmas star back into the spotlight. Questions as to the star’s origins and validity are once again center stage.
  
  While the topic is vast, to be sure, let’s try to address some of the major points in a question-and-answer format.
  
  Q: Wasn’t the star of Bethlehem a star?
  
  A: No, not as we understand stellar astrophysics today. Stars are massive nuclear powerhouses, tens to hundreds of thousands of kilometers in diameter. In addition, their formation, life and death are measured in terms of millions of years. We must also remember that light travels at a finite speed. The light we see from a star on any given night could be hundreds to millions of years old.
  
  Q: So why do we refer to it as a “star?”
  
  A: Understanding of astronomy and the night sky during that period of history was primitive. The original Greek text used the word “aster,” which could apply to any celestial object. Further, the account was written 100 years after the fact and is mentioned in only one of the four Gospels. There is no independent confirmation to give us a clue as to its nature, duration and location.
  
  Q: Are there celestial objects that could have remained stationary and guided the Magi?
  
  A: Scripture suggests that the star stopped over the location where Jesus could be found. Nothing of astronomical origin could meet that requirement, as Earth’s rotation causes the celestial sphere to move from east to west (diurnal motion). Only objects in the far northern sky are circumpolar; that is, they travel along great circles around the north celestial pole. Even planets, which can move either east or west against the background of stars, ultimately must rise and set due to diurnal motion.
  
  Q: Couldn’t there be some remarkable celestial event when Jesus was born?
  
  A: Perhaps, if we knew in what time frame to look.
  
  Any historical analysis requires the establishment of a time line, but there is a contradiction as to the date of Jesus’ birth between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Matthew states that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. Historians and archaeologists have determined Herod died in 4 B.C. Luke claims that Jesus was born during a census that occurred in 6 A.D., when Judea became part of the Roman Empire. Some theologians circumvent this contradiction by claiming the Magi did not visit Jesus until later in his life, not necessarily at the birth. As you can imagine, such is a heavily contested claim. But this window of nearly a decade makes it difficult to identify a celestial event that could be considered the Christmas star. Further difficulty arises when references to the star are unreliable and/or rooted in ancient astrological beliefs.
  
  Q: Are there any notions as to what the star was?
  
  A: Many ideas have been put forth as to what the star could have been. Some are weak, such as meteors, ball lightning and Uranus. Others, such as novae, supernovae, comets and planetary conjunctions, have more merit but still present problems.
  
  Q: So was the star a comet?
  
  A: Probably not. Comets were regarded by many cultures of the time as evil omens. It is unlikely that the Magi would have considered one the sign of a coming savior. The Christian theologian Origen (c. 185-254 A.D.) did try to posit that the star was a comet, claiming one also could foretell positive events. But his claim was later dismissed as an act of desperation.
  
  Q: So what about novae and supernovae? Are they the same thing?
  
  A: Novae occur in binary star systems. As one star spills gas onto the other, pressure builds and a thermonuclear reaction occurs. This can cause the brightness to increase thousands of times. A supernovae is the cataclysmic end of a medium-sized star’s life. When the core runs out of nuclear fuel, it collapses, generating a shock wave that causes the outer layers of the star to explode violently, increasing its brightness millions of times. Novae and supernovae are very dramatic and could have lasted long enough to guide the Magi from Persia to Jerusalem. However, no such event is recorded in our time frame.
  
  Q: What about planets?
  
  A: The motion of the individual planets was too familiar to have been of any real significance. But the story changes when we consider them in groups of two or more.
  
  Planetary conjunctions occur when planets appear very close to each other in the night sky, sometimes even eclipsing each other. Many scholars have considered such events as likely candidates for the Christmas star, especially since the Magi had adopted Babylonian customs and were believers in astrology (not to be confused with the real science of astronomy). Any planetary conjunction is going to take place within the zodiac — the plane of our solar system — and rise and set as dictated by diurnal motion. It would not remain stationary in the sky.
  
  The first such proposal was put forth by Roger Sinnot in 1968. He argued that the Venus-Jupiter conjunction in Leo that occurred on June 17 in 2 B.C. was the guiding star. It would have been visible in the western sky after sunset for roughly one hour and could have been perceived by the Magi as a confirmation of their quest.
  
  Sinnot’s proposal assumes that Leo was the astrological constellation representing Judea, although others argue that it could have been Pisces, Aries, Aquarius and Virgo or even nonzodiac constellations Andromeda and Aquila.
  
  Critics of this idea point out that while the Magi believed in astrology, early Jewish people did not. Further, this date contradicts Matthew’s account of King Herod being alive at the time of the birth.
  
  Q: Have any other planetary conjunctions been proposed?
  
  A: Yes. There was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces in May of 7 B.C. and one of Venus, Saturn, Jupiter and the moon in April of 6 B.C. However, while these conjunctions might have had interesting astrological meaning, they both would have appeared in the eastern sky just before sunrise.
  
  Q: So what conclusion should we reach about the Christmas star?
  
  A: Because of the many discrepancies found in the accounts of the Christmas star and the lack of any independent record, many are now suggesting that the star was simply a literary device added to emphasize Christ’s birth. At best, it was an astronomical event that only the Magi would interpret as an astrological portent. But a mere ordinary astronomical event nonetheless.>>

emc wrote:The Bible is not a science book but is a book of faith written by humans inspired by God - yet the writers are still processing data through their free-willed human minds. Little of what is mentioned in the Bible can be proven and there are more questions than answers regarding timelines of events (it's not a history book either). Like I said, it is a book of faith. Therefore, the "star of Bethlehem" could be outside the scientific realm... perhaps it falls under the same catagory as the "parting of the Red Sea".

We can choose to have faith or restrict ourselves to science alone.

BTW - The image of Jupiter and Venus is beautiful... and fortunately for me I get to drive to work in the AM heading east.

Tue -1 Jun 17 18:46 UTC (BABYLON)
Venus Jupiter separation ~ 0.064°
.
.             Right                   Distance    From 32°32'N 44°25'E:
.           Ascension    Declination      (AU)   Altitude Azimuth
.
Sun          5h 27m 49s   +23° 29.3'     1.017   -25.784  146.424 Set
Venus        8h 43m  0s   +19° 28.1'     0.655     3.682  110.798 Up
Jupiter      8h 43m 15s   +19° 27.1'     6.077     3.725  110.751 Up

BABYLON to Jerusalem       Azimuth: 93   (dist. 292 miles)
BABYLON to Elath    __     Azimuth: 108

Czerno wrote:Neufer & al., would you correct me if I'm wrong, I understand the date of the mentionned conjunction to be "chronological" year 2 BC, -not allowing for a year zero- , alternatively, year -1, allowing for year 0. This is a bit confusing however (to me) : what is the usual convention in modern astronomical discussions ?

Regards

--
Czerno

Nothing of astronomical origin could meet that requirement

craterchains wrote:Obviously this "star" (The original Greek text used the word “aster,” which could apply to any celestial object.) I.E. asterisk *, was low in our atmosphere, moving, and came to a stop over the destination.

craterchains wrote:"Obviously" MY words, it had to be low in our atmosphere, duh?

Now quote the part about the shepards please, , ,

Matthew 2:9 King James Version
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they
saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the
young child was.

neufer wrote: This is obviously a later added literary embellishment. No angels (or UFOs) in their right mind would dare to lead the Magi right TO the young child after they had placed themselves in a position where Herod's henchmen could be following them.

emc wrote:

neufer wrote: This is obviously a later added literary embellishment. No angels (or UFOs) in their right mind would dare to lead the Magi right TO the young child after they had placed themselves in a position where Herod's henchmen could be following them.

Herod did not send henchmen or else they lost their way... If Herod had sent henchmen to follow the Magi and if the henchmen were any good at their job, the young child would have been henched.

emc wrote: The Venus and Jupiter occultation is a very good candidate, especially due to the timing, but it is not the only possibility if one has faith... whether faith is UFOs, physics or an act of God.

neufer wrote: Henchman, n.; pl. -men. [OE. hencheman, henxman; prob. fr. OE. & AS. hengest horse + E. man, and meaning, a groom. AS. hengest is akin to D. & G. hengst stallion, OHG. hengist horse, gelding.] An attendant; a servant; a follower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito
http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/alex_graffito.htm

Science is all about ideas that are "not the only possibility"
and yet are deemed worthy of consideration if not testing.

emc wrote:

neufer wrote: Henchman, n.; pl. -men. [OE. hencheman, henxman; prob. fr. OE. & AS. hengest horse + E. man, and meaning, a groom. AS. hengest is akin to D. & G. hengst stallion, OHG. hengist horse, gelding.] An attendant; a servant; a follower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito
http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/alex_graffito.htm

Science is all about ideas that are "not the only possibility"
and yet are deemed worthy of consideration if not testing.

I forgot to add the "wink" emoticon after "henched" (me trying to be funny... I hope you weren't offended)... Not sure what the graffito is all about though??? Thanks for the lesson.

who feel that they have to take ancient literature/scripture literally

auroradude wrote:Conjunctions of Venus and Jupiter occur quite regularly, about once every 1-1/2 to 2 years. As pretty as it can be, certainly it is not an event of biblical proportions.

FieryIce wrote:

who feel that they have to take ancient literature/scripture literally

Art, you might want to read the book instead of taking to heart what others have said about the book for instance the one asking the questions of Ezra, the angel or ET about two to three millennium ago. That one asking the questions knew a heck of a lot more about science than Ezra did or even you do.

auroradude wrote:Matthew 2 KJV
Forgive my confusion but in this version, the wise men come from the east and have seen the star in the east. That would mean that they traveled west, away from the star or that they came from the west?

auroradude wrote:With all the interpretations of the different languages editing and re-writes, let alone the easily impressed minds of the ancients, I am inclined to conclude that the Bible is not a good source for science or eye witness accounts.

and even recorded the some of their (Magnitude 5) moons since 1610.

So why did it take until 1781 (171 years after Galileo) to discover Uranus