![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/01\/MadScientist.png\")
<\/p>\n
Aaron Adair is an atheist physicist, who wrote the book,\u00a0The Star of Bethlehem: A Skeptical View<\/em> (2013). He initially wrote me a cordial letter after seeing a few of my recent posts on that topic, and I responded in kind, at considerable length. But \u2014 sadly \u2014 it quickly descended to the usual anti-theist atheist insults. My reply below under an absolutely atrocious, abominable put-down post from him against me (or rather, a gross caricature<\/em> of what I am and what I have argued), was posted underneath it<\/a> at Jonathan Pearce\u2019s blog, A Tippling Philosopher<\/em>.\u00a0 Aaron\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n As Aaron alluded to, we had been engaging in private correspondence, which quickly went sour due to his relentless insults. It was perfectly cordial in the first round till Jonathan publicly reported that Aaron [not named but later verified] called one of my articles \u2014 behind my back as it were \u2013, a bunch of \u201chot air\u201d<\/span>. Then it quickly went downhill after that (to my immense disappointment: but I should have known better). One gets a flavor of what happened privately, above: \u201che\u2019s a poor researcher, searching for any tidbit that seems to favor his theories and blind to any contrary evidence.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n What else is new with anti-theist atheists? If even well-known Christian debaters and philosophers like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga get the same treatment (they\u2019re all idiots and blowhards, so we are endlessly reminded), who am I (a mere lowly, despised lay apologist) to think it would be any different and that respectful dialogue could actually be attained? Heaven help me from my hopeless idealism . . .<\/p>\n Whatever my merits or demerits, abilities or lack thereof, clueless idiot or not, at least I was willing to enter into a full-fledged point-by-point debate, with both sides comprehensively presented on my blog (and his \u2014 + this one \u2014 , if he wanted) but Aaron\u00a0flatly refused<\/b><\/i>. So instead we have him systematically caricaturing my side of the argument. Very impressive, but par for the usual course. Rather than a fair exchange of two sides, we have one side cynically caricaturing what the other argued, with massive misrepresentation: trashing supposedly lousy research and then\u00a0exhibiting<\/i>\u00a0the same for one and all to see. It\u2019s pathetic and pitiful: all the more so from an academic (a physicist).<\/p>\n If anyone wants to read\u00a0how I\u00a0actually<\/b>\u00a0argue<\/i>\u00a0the thing, see my nine articles on the star:<\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem, Astronomy, Wise Men, & Josephus\u00a0<\/a>(Amazing Astronomically Verified Data in Relation to the Journey of the Wise Men\u00a0 & Jesus\u2019 Birth & Infancy)\u00a0[12-14-20]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Timeline: Star of Bethlehem, Herod\u2019s Death, & Jesus\u2019 Birth (Chronology of Harmonious Data from History, Archaeology, the Bible, and Astronomy)<\/a>\u00a0[12-15-20]<\/p>\n Conjunctions, the Star of Bethlehem and Astronomy<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 12-21-20]<\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem: Refuting Silly Atheist Objections<\/a>\u00a0[12-26-20]<\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem: More Silly Atheist \u201cObjections\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[12-29-20]<\/p>\n Astronomy, Exegesis and the Star of Bethlehem<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 12-31-20]<\/p>\n Pearce\u2019s Potshots #12: Supernatural Star of Bethlehem? (Biblical View of Astronomy, Laws of Nature, and the Natural World)<\/a>\u00a0[1-11-21]<\/p>\n Star of Bethlehem: Natural or Supernatural?<\/a>\u00a0[1-13-21]<\/p>\n Bible Commentaries & Matthew 2:9 (Star of Bethlehem)<\/a>\u00a0[1-13-21]<\/p>\n I ain\u2019t gonna take on every misrepresentation and\/or noncomprehension of my arguments presented above. It would be a complete waste of time. I\u2019ve already dealt with all this. Jonathan blew it off, refused to discuss it, and so I presented it in a new paper yesterday<\/a>, and added another just about biblical commentators and their views<\/a>. Most atheists will simply believe their fellow atheist no matter what. There is little interest in actual dialogue. Aaron had none.<\/p>\n Fair-mindedness and giving someone even a minimal benefit of the doubt that they have honest, thought-out differences seem to be regarded around here and in virtually all atheist echo chamber venues, as quaint and naive remnants of a remote past. So I\u2019ll just pick one thing where Aaron has made a mountain out of a molehill: the issue of what the Greek word\u00a0hou<\/i>\u00a0means.<\/p>\n I explained to him what happened there, and it was an exceedingly minor point, but to no avail. I never\u00a0called<\/i>\u00a0it a \u201cnoun.\u201d I simply said that it was translated as \u201cplace\u201d in English translations (which will be documented below). It\u2019s true I modified this section, because if Aaron could misunderstand what I wrote this badly, chances are others<\/em> could, as well. In modifying, I took the opportunity to make my argument presented there far stronger (which is what I absolutely love about challenges: however ill thought out, as this one was), and Aaron hasn\u2019t touched it: being too caught up in his goal of making me look like an idiot allegedly way over my head, special pleader, and dishonest researcher.<\/p>\n Here is my fuller \/ modified argument from the word\u00a0hou<\/i>, in one of my replies to Jonathan<\/a> that he, too, has decided not to reply to thus far (though he has done so with several of my articles in the past, and recent past). Make up your own minds (since Aaron has flat-out refused to discuss these things in the depth they deserve):<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Matthew 2:9<\/b>\u00a0. . . the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was.<\/p>\n This passage refers\u00a0only<\/i>\u00a0to the six-mile journey between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and I have contended that all it means is that a bright star (I believe, Jupiter, in my scenario, backed up by astronomical charts of what was in the sky and where) was at the time in the direction of Bethlehem (that is, over it) from Jerusalem. It would not have \u201cmoved\u201d in the perception of the wise men, over a journey of six miles, just as we could say we were traveling west, following the setting sun. It would always \u201cgo before us\u201d as we traveled.<\/p>\n It\u2019s phenomenological language, which is habitually used by Bible writers. We use it even to this day by referring to the \u201csun rising\u201d or \u201csun going down\u201d etc. Literally (as we understand) it is the earth rotating, thus making the sun\u00a0appear<\/i>\u00a0to move. But we still refer to it in the non-literal way. So does the Bible, about a lot of things.<\/p>\n The other aspect is the clause \u201cit came to rest over the place where the child was.\u201d First of all, the text does not say that this means it shone\u00a0specifically onto a \u201chouse.\u201d<\/i>\u00a0Matthew 2:11 (i.e., two verses later) simply says they\u00a0went<\/b><\/i>\u00a0\u201cinto a house\u201d: not that the star was shining on it,\u00a0identifying<\/i>\u00a0it. We have to get it straight: what exactly any given text under consideration actually\u00a0asserts<\/i>\u00a0and does\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>assert.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s examine the actual biblical text a little more closely. The Greek \u201cadverb of place\u201d in Matthew 2:9 is\u00a0hou<\/i>\u00a0(Strong\u2019s word #3757<\/a>). In RSV\u00a0hou<\/i>\u00a0is translated by \u201cthe place where\u201d (in KJV, simply \u201cwhere\u201d). It applies to a wide range of meanings beyond something as specific as a house. In other passages in RSV it refers to a mountain (Mt 28:16), Nazareth (Lk 4:16), a village (Lk 24:28), the land of Midian (Acts 7:29), Puteoli (Pozzuoli<\/a>): a sizeable city in Italy (Acts 28:14), and the vast wilderness that Moses and the Hebrews traveled through (Heb 3:9). Thus it can easily, plausibly refer to \u201cBethlehem\u201d in Matthew 2:9.<\/p>\n In RSV (Mt 2:9),\u00a0hou<\/i>\u00a0is translated by the italicized words: \u201cit came to rest over\u00a0the place where<\/i>\u00a0the child was.\u201d So the question is: what does it mean by \u201cplace\u201d in this instance? What is the star said to be \u201cover\u201d? And then I noted other uses of the same word, which referred to a variety of larger areas. The text does not specifically say that \u201cit stood over a\u00a0house<\/i>.\u201d Yet Jonathan (and many able and sincere, but in my opinion mistaken, Christian commentators) seem to think it\u00a0does<\/i>.<\/p>\n This is an important point because it goes to the issue of supernatural or natural. A \u201cstar\u201d (whatever it is) shining a beam down on one house would be (I agree) supernatural; not any kind of \u201cstar\u201d we know of in the natural world. But a star shining on an area; in the direction of an area (which a bright Jupiter was to Bethlehem in my scenario: at 68 degrees in the sky) can be a perfectly natural event.<\/p>\n Matthew 2:9 is similar to how we say in English: \u201cwhere<\/i>\u00a0I was, I could see the conjunction very well.\u201d \u201cWhere\u201d obviously refers to a\u00a0place<\/i>. And one\u2019s place is many things simultaneously. Thus, when I saw the \u201cstar of Bethlehem\u201d-like conjunction in December [2020], I was in a field, near my house (in my neighborhood), in my town (Tecumseh), in my county (Lenawee), in my state (Michigan), and in my country (United States). This is my point about \u201cplace\u201d in Matthew 2:9. It can mean larger areas, beyond just \u201chouse.\u201d If the text doesn\u2019t\u00a0say\u00a0<\/i>specifically, \u201cthe star shone on the house\u201d\u00a0then we can\u2019t say for sure that this is what the text\u00a0meant<\/b><\/i>.<\/p>\n I never claimed that\u00a0hou<\/i>\u00a0was a \u201cnoun\u201d in my original wording. I was noting that it was referring to place: as indeed it did in Matthew 2:9, since the translation of it in RSV is \u201cthe place where.\u201d Therefore \u201cplace\u201d is a translation of\u00a0hou<\/i>\u00a0in this instance.<\/p>\n I have found 18 other English Bible translations of Matthew 2:9 that also have \u201cthe place where\u201d (Weymouth, Moffatt, Confraternity, Knox, NEB, REB, NRSV, Lamsa, Amplified, Phillips, TEV, NIV, Jerusalem, Williams, Beck, NAB, Kleist & Lilly, and Goodspeed). In all these cases, they are translating\u00a0hou<\/i>: literally meaning \u201cwhere\u201d but at the same time implying\u00a0place\u00a0<\/b><\/i>(which is the \u201cwhere\u201d referred to). The Living Bible (a very modern paraphrase) has \u201cstanding over Bethlehem\u201d: which of course, bolsters my argument as well (because it didn\u2019t say \u201chouse\u201d).<\/p>\n All these things being\u00a0understood<\/i>, all the text in question plausibly meant is that the bright star was shining down on Bethlehem, just as we have all seen the moon or some bright star shining on a mountain in the distance or tall building or some other landmark. A man might see the light from the harvest moon romantically shining on his girlfriend or wife\u2019s face. It need not necessarily mean that this is\u00a0all\u00a0<\/i>they are shining on. It simply\u00a0looks\u00a0<\/i>that way from our particular vantage-point.<\/p>\n All of this is in my opinion, more plausible and straightforward and in line with biblical thinking than positing a supernatural \u201cstar.\u201d It\u2019s true that many reputable and observant Christian biblical commentators exist who do argue for that interpretation, and I don\u2019t disparage them. Theirs are honest efforts just as this paper is. Reasonable people can and do disagree. I can only present the reasons for why I hold to my opinion, and for why Jonathan\u2019s assertions of a\u00a0necessary<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0exclusively plausible<\/i>\u00a0supernatural nature of the star of Bethlehem are less reasonable and likely than my scenario.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Carstonio<\/a> (henceforth in green<\/span>)\u00a0Any point of light in the sky that would have been capable of spotlighting a small area on the ground certainly wouldn\u2019t have been a star or a planet \u2013 perhaps only a few hundred feet in the air. The originators of the nativity legend wouldn\u2019t have made that kind of distinction, given the knowledge of cosmology at the time. Based on the text, the behavior sounds more like the Deluminator in the last Harry Potter<\/em> novel.<\/span><\/p>\n Again, the text<\/strong> <\/em>doesn\u2019t specify a \u201csmall area\u201d being illuminated, or even a larger one, as I have explained over and over. All the actual text<\/strong> <\/em> says is \u201cthe star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was\u201d (Matthew 2:9, RSV). And as I have shown, all that has to mean, given the use of the word\u00a0hou\u00a0<\/i>in the New Testament is: \u201cthe star stood over Bethlehem\u201d: particularly from the vantage point of the journey south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.<\/p>\n It had to be [in this scenario] in the direction of Bethlehem (south). In my scheme it (Jupiter) is that in December 2 BC: 68 degrees up in the sky too, according to the astronomical charts. That\u2019s known; the only question is if it lines up with the date of Jesus\u2019 birth, which is a whole different question, of course.<\/p>\n This business of \u201cspotlighting a small area\u201d<\/span> is simply not in<\/em> this text, and I think many people get the idea from 1) Christmas cards and other prevalent images of the Nativity, and 2) the passage in Luke regarding the angels and shepherds, where almost all Christian commentators (including myself) hold that the light is<\/em><\/strong> supernatural and what is called\u00a0shekinah<\/i>, or the light of \u201cGod\u2019s [or angels\u2019] glory.\u201d<\/p>\n Geoff Benson<\/a> (henceforth in brown<\/span>)<\/p>\n \u201c them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Two points. Firstly how could it \u2018rest\u2019? It is a very slow moving (our perception) celestial body so it could never just stop from the viewpoint of the Magi. They didn\u2019t see it actually moving so they didn\u2019t see it stop. Secondly, it\u2019s several hundred million miles away. At any considered point it can\u2019t be regarded as direction to any individual point. The Magi would have needed to move only a few yards and the indicated target would have been entirely different, even assuming it was sufficiently low on the horizon to give meaningful guidance. The very simple geometry problems are massive.<\/span><\/p>\n My broader point still holds \u2013 a light that behaved that way would have had to be in the troposphere.<\/span><\/p>\n Your presupposition as to how it supposedly behaved isn\u2019t in the text, so it has no support.<\/p>\n The text says the star went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was. That\u2019s a description of a light that\u2019s moving in the sky at the traveling speed of the three men, independent of the stars, and that would require a fairly low height compared with celestial objects.<\/span><\/p>\n It is if it\u2019s taken literally. I don\u2019t take it absolutely literally, but rather, view it as one of many biblical examples of phenomenological language: the language of appearance.<\/p>\n Isn\u2019t this an excellent example of why the \u2018star\u2019 should be regarded as supernatural, and not a natural phenomenon [?]<\/span><\/p>\n No, at least not in my opinion. But there are a lot of good Christians who think it\u2019s supernatural. We have no problem allowing a diversity of explanations. The important thing was that it existed and was a sign to the wise men. All Christians fully agree on that, which is the essence<\/em> of it, after all.<\/p>\n And plenty of other Christians don\u2019t read the stories literally either. But some do and they demand that everyone else accept them as irrefutable fact. Because of that demand, the literal readings deserve to be scrutinized and challenged, or at least categorized as originating with legend.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m not demanding\u00a0anything<\/i>\u00a0about the star (other than that it was an actual historical occurrence per my belief in the veracity of the Bible). Equally good Christians take all kinds of positions. I\u2019m opposing Jonathan and Aaron\u2019s \u201cdogmatic supernaturalism\u201d regarding the star.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Two quick things:<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Since you translated\u00a0hou<\/i>\u00a0as \u2018place\u2019, and \u2018place\u2019 is a noun, you therefore said\u00a0hou<\/i>\u00a0is a noun. This is just basic transitive logic: if A=B, and B=C, then A=C. Please don\u2019t tell me I misunderstood your argument when you clearly don\u2019t understand your own.<\/span><\/p>\n 2. I don\u2019t have reason to go point-for-point because you literally just ignored the entirety of my article, not to mention my book on the subject. Why go into details when you don\u2019t even know what the details of the argument are, while also showing you don\u2019t know anything about the underlying text and need help with the most basic points?<\/span><\/p>\n Oh, so you are Aaron [I didn\u2019t realize this at first, given the usual ridiculous nickname: a thing I have loathed online since 1996], and now you\u2019ve worked up the gumption to actually interact with my specific arguments: here with all your buddies to support and cheerlead, while I\u2019m all by myself? That\u2019s cute.<\/p>\n I didn\u2019t translate\u00a0anything<\/i>, so your premise is wrong. I don\u2019t know Greek. 19 Bible translations (produced by many hundreds of Greek linguists) decided to translate the clause in Matthew 2:9 as \u201cthe place where\u201d [Jesus was]. Go take it up with them. I merely reported what they did.<\/p>\n I have explained its\u00a0relationship<\/i>\u00a0(it\u2019s described by grammarians as an \u201cadverb of place\u201d after all) to what is indeed a noun: \u201cplace\u201d (to no avail). Both you and Jonathan refused to address this. It can\u00a0function<\/i>\u00a0very much like a noun in English usage, as I have noted recently. We say, for example, \u201cwhere we were, was an excellent vantage-point to view the conjunction.\u201d It obviously inexorably implies \u201cplace\u201d (noun): which is why some Bible translations (e.g., KJV) simply use \u201cwhere\u201d for\u00a0hou\u00a0<\/i>at Matthew 2:9, and additionally why 19 that I have found render it \u201cthe\u00a0place<\/i><\/b>\u00a0where.\u201d<\/p>\n So all this hogwash about me saying\u00a0hou<\/i>\u00a0was a noun, which I never did, and ignoring this aspect which I have now explained more than once, is obscurantism and obfuscation; sophistry. It\u2019s yet another case where atheists can\u2019t admit that a Christian can be right about anything.<\/p>\n What\u2019s actually relevant is what \u201cplace\u201d in this sense refers to<\/em> in biblical\u00a0koine<\/i>\u00a0Greek, and as I have shown, it refers to larger areas: not just one house, as you and Jonathan appear to think.<\/p>\n Yes, I will ignore most of your idiotic \u201creply\u201d to me because it\u2019s aimed at things I don\u2019t believe in the first place. You\u2019ve forfeited the opportunity to have a serious, constructive discussion with a Christian about this (as your first letter seemed to be) by acting like a pompous ass and academic snob. That was your choice. I\u2019m simply clarifying a few key things here since you have decided to attack me all the more and try to make me look like a pretentious fool.<\/p>\n It can function like a noun? Congrats, you\u2019re just making things up. Adverbs are not nouns, and they don\u2019t function as nouns. As for its relationship, uh all words have relationships! Don\u2019t try to make a linguistic argument, it\u2019s just embarrassing.<\/span><\/p>\n Please also note, I never said the translation \u2018the place where\u2019 was wrong. Not once. What I did say was that you said\u00a0hou<\/i>\u00a0meant place, which it does not. Everything else you have tried to come up with is the same sort of hot air I complained about: sound and fury signifying nothing.<\/span><\/p>\n Additionally, I never said\u00a0hou<\/i>\u00a0only refers to small areas or just houses. Not once. Instead, what did I say? Look up, and you\u2019ll find that I said the meaning of such general words get their meaning from context. And you ignored every other word in the verse. You are literally taking the word out of context, and somehow say that proves its meaning in context.<\/span><\/p>\n Try addressing my actual arguments. You\u2019ll learn a thing of two.<\/span><\/p>\n Hou<\/i>\u00a0is translated as \u201cthe place where\u201d in 19 Bible translations. Take it up with them. I might get some finer grammatical points wrong (I freely confess) \u2014 I hated grammar in school, though I got A\u2019s in English and wound up as an author and writer \u2014 , but this basic fact stands. You can\u2019t (and don\u2019t, above) deny that the word was rendered \u201cthe place where\u201d by these many hundreds of linguists.<\/p>\n I did nothing wrong in noting that fact. The \u201csound and fury signifying nothing\u201d<\/span> is all from your end.<\/p>\n Looks like you\u2019re reading skills are failing you, as are grammar skills. I never said the translation \u2018the place where\u2019 was wrong. Not on[c]e. I said that you were wrong when you said\u00a0hou<\/i>\u00a0meant place. You can\u2019t even begin to address my actual arguments if you don\u2019t even know what I\u2019ve said. Actually address what\u2019s there, not the phantasm you imagine.<\/span><\/p>\n I know that feeling well! I\u2019m not interested any longer in\u00a0any<\/i>\u00a0discussion with you. When you first wrote, I was\u00a0very<\/i>\u00a0interested. But I lose all interest once someone takes a hostile stance and starts misrepresenting my views. It\u2019s only because you did the latter here that I replied, since I have a right to defend myself (and Jonathan is nice enough to not ban me like Seidensticker does).<\/p>\n But I\u2019ve done about all I can do here. There\u2019s very little genuine dialogue between Christians and atheists anywhere.<\/p>\n In other words, you can\u2019t address any point I\u2019ve made. I\u2019ve already shown that your arguments are fundamentally flawed, you don\u2019t even show an awareness of what my arguments are, and you copy-paste over and over what is not even relevant and misrepresent what anyone has said, all because you were shown to be wrong even on trivial basics.<\/span><\/p>\n If you want dialogue, actually address the arguments. If you can\u2019t, then move on to something you can defend. If you don\u2019t know Greek, don\u2019t try declaring you know what the Greek means. If you don\u2019t know astronomy, don\u2019t make astronomical arguments. If you don\u2019t know much of anything about the theories of the Star of Bethlehem, don\u2019t argue with an expert on the subject as if you know anything and then cry all over the Internet that your feelings were hurt.<\/span><\/p>\n And most importantly, don\u2019t lie about things. That\u2019ll really get you in trouble.<\/span><\/p>\n And don\u2019t be a pompous ass and an academic snob. It gives a bad name to atheists, who already are widely perceived among Christians as irrationally angry, relentlessly hostile and insulting, and impossible to interact with in any constructive manner. If you want to foster that perception, knock yourself out.<\/p>\n This\u00a0could<\/i>\u00a0have been a great and enjoyable dialogue. There was no need to descend to rank insult as you have done. It impresses no one except atheists who want to push the notion that all Christians are idiots and anti-science, anti-reason. I\u2019m not a liar and I\u2019m not an idiot (agree or disagree with me on whatever). I don\u2019t think all atheists are immoral people who will automatically go to hell (never have). I\u2019ve had great dialogues with several atheists (one of which is my very favorite among my 1000+ posted online).<\/p>\n I haven\u2019t pretended that I know more about anything (be it astronomy or Greek) than I do. I\u2019m citing others who do<\/strong><\/em> know about those things. I simply have an honest disagreement on this issue with you.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Matt Brooker (Syncretocrat)<\/a><\/p>\n These attempts to make Bible stories fit with scientific fact strike me as odd for two reasons:<\/span><\/p>\n 1) If you already accept miracles, what\u2019s implausible about god creating a moving light in the sky that looks like a star? If critics don\u2019t like miracles, just accuse them of \u201canti-supernatural bias.\u201d That seems more congruent with theism than trying to shoehorn Bible stories into scientific fact.<\/span><\/p>\n 2) Doesn\u2019t the whole enterprise of making the Bible fit with science show that science is the greater authority?<\/span><\/p>\n No. It shows that Christians respect science just as everyone else does, and that we take it into consideration in biblical exegesis, which has changed as a result of scientific discovery. In one of my papers on the star I noted five areas where this has happened.<\/p>\n We believe in scientific knowledge and discovery and also theological knowledge (from revelation and reason). Both things are true. Many Christians were wrong about heliocentrism in the 16th century, but so also were Copernicus and Galileo (both Catholics, of course), since the sun ain\u2019t the center of the universe, either. And Galileo and Kepler were neck-deep into astrology, and Newton into occultism and alchemy. We all learn stuff all the time.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n eric<\/a><\/p>\n But how did you decide that\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0phenomena was not a miracle? You\u2019re drawing from RSV Matthew 2. Okay, in that same section, in verse 13, an angel appears to Joseph in a dream. Was that also a natural phenomenon?<\/span><\/p>\n If not, how did you come to the conclusion that 2:9 does not describe a miracle, but 2:13 does? It seems quite arbitrary.<\/span><\/p>\n One has to look at each case. There are obviously lots of miracles in the Bible, and I believe them, as an orthodox Catholic who believes in biblical inspiration. I happen to think (for many reasons that I detail in my papers) that it\u2019s more plausible to hold that the star of Bethlehem was a natural occurrence (actually a combination of two different celestial events). Likewise, natural occurrences coincided with Jesus\u2019 crucifixion (an eclipse and an earthquake: both also able to be verified from scientific and literary records).<\/p>\n Many Christian commentators (and most before the 19th century, as Aaron likes to point out) have thought the star was supernatural, too. We have a diversity of opinion on the matter, but Jonathan and Aaron want to be dogmatic (how ironic, huh?) and act as if only the supernatural version can be held by any rational, sentient being. It\u2019s poppycock.<\/p>\n While \u201call miracles\u201d or \u201cno miracles\u201d might be dogmatic, having a consistent method for deciding which is which is, in my opinion, not. While personal reasoning may be fine for individual believers (like you), once someone decides they want to try and convince others, having a system that an outsider like me\u00a0cannot apply<\/i>\u00a0independently means your system is not convincing. It may be valid, but without being able to communicate it, I cannot determine that.<\/span><\/p>\n But let\u2019s leave this aside. I\u2019d rather we continued to discuss your Jupiter explanation above, than spend more time on this.<\/span><\/p>\n I think most cases are obvious. The star is a bit more subtle than most (which is why it\u2019s really fascinating for a Bible student and apologist like me to ponder, because it\u2019s not hard and fast). I have provided many reasons for why I think the natural explanation is more plausible. It would have been fun to discuss and debate those point-by-point with Aaron, if he had remained congenial, but he decided not to.<\/p>\n Most biblical miracles can hardly be deemed as natural events (though many have tried: particularly more theologically liberal commentators). One famous one is the ridiculous slop about the \u201cReed Sea\u201d that was only a few inches deep. Moses \u201cparted\u201d that and the Hebrews slogged through it. The standard joke about this is that the real miracle would have been the Egyptian army drowning in two inches of water. LOL<\/p>\n Most biblical miracles (assuming, of course, that they actually happened as reported) could only be miraculous. Jesus raised the dead, healed the sick, raised Himself, fed the 4000 and 5000 by multiplying available food, walked on water, stilled the storm, ascended to heaven. No one could say these were \u201cnatural\u201d events. Elijah went to heaven in a fiery chariot. Manna came down from heaven, donkeys talked, weird plagues came upon Egypt. People talked in languages they themselves didn\u2019t know, on the day of Pentecost. God became a man. Baptism regenerates us and does all sorts of wonderful things. Wicked sinners can be redeemed and exhibit radically changed lives. All miraculous . . .<\/p>\n One thing that can be natural was Jonah and the whale. It\u2019s now been proven that men could be swallowed like that and actually survive (actual cases). If it wasn\u2019t miraculous for them then it likely wasn\u2019t for Jonah, either.<\/p>\n I noted in one of my papers that when I wrote about Joshua and the \u201csun standing still\u201d I took a miraculous view, but not of the sun being still (which would mean, of course, that the earth stopped rotating). Rather, my view was that God caused a massive change in the perception of the people, in how they saw the sun. Some explanations try to take a more phenomenological-type view, as I have with the star. I didn\u2019t buy it. It wasn\u2019t convincing to me at all.<\/p>\n But back to the star: my scientific \/ natural view indeed can be examined independently, precisely because it involves known astronomical events in particular places. That\u2019s what\u2019s so fun about it. I think its a great argument for the Bible and the miraculous birth of Jesus. It\u2019s one of those things like the Shroud of Turin and the image of Mary Guadalupe and the miracle of the sun at Fatima (witnessed by 70,000) and incorrupt bodies of saints that have all sorts of fascinating aspects to them (and can be scrutinized through scientific techniques). It reminds me of the confirming evidences of biblical archaeology: except here it\u2019s astronomy that confirms biblical accounts.<\/p>\n All of this works to convince the occasional atheist precisely because it can be verified and examined in a way that a supernatural explanation cannot. Atheists can simply dismiss all miracles out of hand, and they do all the time (even though it\u2019s irrational to do so, I would say, since it\u2019s very difficult to prove universal negatives).<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n [RSV] Matthew 2:9 . . . the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was.<\/p>\n [DA] This passage refers only to the six-mile journey between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and I have contended that all it means is that a bright star (I believe, Jupiter, in my scenario, backed up by astronomical charts of what was in the sky and where) was at the time in the direction of Bethlehem (that is, over it) from Jerusalem. It would not have \u201cmoved\u201d in the perception of the wise men, over a journey of six miles, just as we could say we were traveling west, following the setting sun. It would always \u201cgo before us\u201d as we traveled.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hello David. I hope you will answer my question.<\/span><\/p>\n So the Magi are in Jerusalem. Jupiter is in the southern part of the sky \u2013 mostly direct south or perhaps SSW of them. They travel the 5 or so miles in the direction of Jupiter and arrive at Bethlehem. Jupiter hasn\u2019t moved, the time is too short. So it\u2019s still in the southern sky to the Magi.<\/span><\/p>\n How is this \u201ccame to rest\u201d? The \u2018star\u2019 looks exactly the same, and is in the exact same place, it was when they were in Jerusalem. Nothing about Jupiter can indicate to them that they\u2019ve arrived at their destination, because to them, it\u2019s exactly the same as it was one city back. So how is your scenario consistent with the passage?<\/span><\/p>\n Thanks for the question. I would reply in two ways: it\u2019s phenomenological language: which is non-literal, but in this case describes what some commentators on the question would say is the retrograde motion or \u201cstationary point\u201d of planets (in this instance, Jupiter).<\/p>\n Thank you for your answer. But I do not understand how that answers my question. You said:\u00a0\u201cIt would not have \u201cmoved\u201d in the perception of the wise men.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n Now you\u2019re discussing retrograde motion. Did they see retrograde motion? Is that what you are saying \u201ccome to rest\u201d means \u2013 the observation of the planet going (very\u2026very\u2026slowly\u2026) west instead of east?<\/span><\/p>\n How is this consistent with your original claim, above, that they didn\u2019t see it move?<\/span><\/p>\n They wouldn\u2019t see any motion to speak of if Jupiter was at a stationary point and in the sky to the south over Bethlehem, approached from Jerusalem.<\/p>\n Okay, so I\u2019m sorry if I\u2019m being dense about this, but if the Magi didn\u2019t see it move, how is your post about retrograde motion relevant to the verse\u2019s statement that the star \u2018came to rest?\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n It wouldn\u2019t move much on the way from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. A camel normally travels about three miles an hour, so it would have taken them about two hours. That\u2019s roughly the entire time the Bible refers to them (in non-literal language, I believe) following a star. In the language of appearance (remember, this is my interpretation: non-literal language employed), it \u201cwent before them\u201d not in perceived motion, but because it was always ahead of them on the way.<\/p>\n To say, then, that the star \u201ccame to rest over the place\u201d is to observe that they didn\u2019t see it moving much over Bethlehem\u00a0once they arrived there<\/i>. I\u2019m not an astronomer, so I can only cite other people who know more about these aspects.<\/p>\n The\u00a0EarthSky\u00a0<\/i>site (\u201cJupiter ends retrograde on July 10-11\u201d<\/a>) notes regarding Jupiter\u2019s stationary point in July 10-11, 2018:<\/p>\n Tonight \u2013 July 10-11, 2018 \u2013 the planet Jupiter is poised in front of the stars of the zodiac. It\u2019s now moving neither east nor west against the star background, but will soon resume its usual eastward course. In other words, Jupiter is stationary on July 11 at 04:00 UTC. In United States time zones, Jupiter reaches its stationary point on July 11 at 12 midnight EDT, and on July 10 at 11 p.m. CDT, 10 p.m. MDT, 9 p.m. PDT, 8 p.m. Alaskan Time and 6 p.m. Hawaiian time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So in my scenario, this was the case in Bethlehem when the Magi arrived. This is what would have looked to them like \u201c[coming] to rest over\u201d Bethlehem. The astronomical charts show this for one of the days in December, 2 BC. That\u2019s my proposed date for their visit. Of course it could be wrong and is only speculation, but Jupiter would behave in this way then.<\/p>\n The Wikipedia article, \u201cApparent retrograde motion\u201d<\/a> provides another example:<\/p>\n Galileo\u2019s drawings show that he first observed Neptune on December 28, 1612, and again on January 27, 1613. On both occasions, Galileo mistook Neptune for a fixed star when it appeared very close\u2014in conjunction\u2014to Jupiter in the night sky, hence, he is not credited with Neptune\u2019s discovery. During the period of his first observation in December 1612, Neptune was stationary in the sky because it had just turned retrograde that very day. Since Neptune was only beginning its yearly retrograde cycle, the motion of the planet was far too slight to be detected with Galileo\u2019s small telescope.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s lack of motion, and that is what I and others suggest was happening with Jupiter over Bethlehem when the wise men visited, thus bringing about the Bible\u2019s statement that it \u201ccame to rest over the place where the child was\u201d (Mt 2:9, RSV). Thus, the language of appearance can explain both clauses: the one just mentioned and also \u201cwent before them\u201d, and can be harmonized with celestial events in the way I have explained.<\/p>\n If the wise men hit the right day, Jupiter would have appeared<\/em> to be stationary, just as Neptune was for Galileo in December 1612 \u201cbecause it had just turned retrograde that very day.\u201d I didn\u2019t make this stuff up. I had never heard about it till last month when I saw the famous Larson video on the star. But it has fascinated me ever since and it\u2019s my theory unless and until I see something more plausible.<\/p>\n In the Christian view, God in His providence could have again arranged that the wise men, exercising their own free will, arrived at just the right time when the bright Jupiter appeared to be a sign above Jerusalem, for this king they believed was indicated by what they saw in Persia or Babylon (both due east).<\/p>\n Commentator Peter Pett<\/a> stated that Jupiter \u201cwas actually stationary on December 25, interestingly enough, during Hanukkah, the season for giving presents.\u201d That was in 2 BC. Note again that I am not saying this is when Jesus was born, but rather, when He was a year old. Just as the trek to Bethlehem may have taken only 18 or so minutes, likewise, their visit to Jesus may have been very short, for all we know. The overall passage may imply that they left quickly, to avoid a return visit to Herod: going back another way: which I think was either the coastal route west and north or straight through the desert to the east.<\/p>\n But say they were only there two hours. They would have seen very little motion of Jupiter in that time because of its being stationary, and so again, it would be perfectly harmonious with the clause \u201ccame to rest over the place where the child was\u201d. Phenomenological language describing natural events all the way . . . That\u2019s my theory.<\/p>\n Why didn\u2019t they stop in Jerusalem? A 20-120 minute travel time means Jupiter would\u2019ve also been in the \u2018pause day\u2019 in it\u2019s precession when they were in Jerusalem.<\/span><\/p>\n Given that the pause-and-reverse window is relatively long (a day or so), how did they know the \u201cat rest\u201d moment was in Bethlehem, rather than an hour or two earlier in Jerusalem or an hour or two or more down the road?<\/span><\/p>\n Well, I did find some good material that I added somewhere in this mammoth thread: about ancient knowledge of retrograde motion of planets. [added to my longest paper on the star<\/a>]<\/p>\n My view is that they saw a conjunction while in Persia or Babylon that led them (by means of their astronomy \/ astrology) to believe a king was to be born in Jerusalem or somewhere in Israel, at any rate. They got to Jerusalem by the usual known and well-traveled routes (Royal Road \/ King\u2019s Highway \/ Silk Road through the Fertile Crescent around the desert) and inquired for more specific information to find Jesus (Mt 2:1-2). Herod summoned them and they learned about the messianic prophecy of Micah 5:2 from his priests. So now they had general astronomical guidance and more specific prophetic indication.<\/p>\n That\u2019s more than enough to know that the blessed event was in Bethlehem, not in Jerusalem. Bethlehem was, moreover, the city of David, so if one is looking for more \u201ckingly\u201d significance, there you go. And the Old Testament presented David as a prototype of the Messiah. So that\u2019s now two scriptural pointers to Bethlehem.<\/p>\n The star (not the bright conjunction they saw in the east but now Jupiter alone) was in that direction, but they already knew by this point that this was the destination anyway. Once they got there it \u201ccame to rest\u201d and they recognized that this was retrograde motion and Jupiter\u2019s stationary point, because we know (as I showed earlier) that the ancients (particularly the Babylonians) knew about these things, which would mean that they<\/em>, as astronomers and sky-watchers, very likely did. Thus, they may have passed on the highly technical information about retrograde motion and Jupiter\u2019s stationary point in common parlance as \u201ccame to rest.\u201d<\/p>\n When they were in Bethlehem, the fact that Jupiter had reached its stationary point and appeared to be 1) over Bethlehem and 2) not moving much or at all, would have been further astronomical verification to them, so, accordingly, \u201cthey rejoiced exceedingly with great joy\u201d (Mt 2:10).<\/p>\n The holy family itself could have been found by the usual means. Everyone in a small town knows everyone else. One simply asks around. Certainly, if Jesus was a year-old at this time, as I believe, people in Bethlehem (at least\u00a0someone<\/i>\u00a0there) would have been familiar with the story of Luke 2 and His Nativity and would know where He was living. This ain\u2019t rocket science.<\/p>\n The star didn\u2019t guide them to\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0extent (right to the house) because it didn\u2019t\u00a0shine down on the house<\/i>. That\u2019s not in the text, and is simply widespread \u201cChristmas myth\u201d (and often atheist skeptical anti-Christmas myth as well). It was just sitting there up above Bethlehem, stationary, and so they took that as a sign, along with the messianic prophecy.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n I also note: in my first emails to you I never insulted you. I said your arguments were bad in my second message to you. If you can\u2019t distance yourself from your arguments, then that is a failure on your part. I\u2019ve had friends tell me I\u2019ve made bad arguments before, and I didn\u2019t take it as a personal affront. Moreover, I even told you what you could do to have a good argument. I went out of my way to let you know how you could convince me. But instead, your just went and figuratively flipped the table, and now are looking for more places to vent.<\/span><\/p>\n Maybe, just maybe, you are taking this stuff that you don\u2019t even know that well all too personally. I\u2019d either drop it, or learn the underlying material better than folks like me. Flailing about because everyone here finds your arguments to be poor ain\u2019t doing you or your apologetic mission any favors.<\/span><\/p>\n You know full well that you weren\u2019t just disagreeing with what you think are bad arguments. You went (starting in your second letter; the first was basically just a few questions) right to me being supposedly deliberately dishonest and an absolutely incompetent researcher.<\/p>\n You made a mountain out of a molehill with a completely minor, \u201cfootnote\u201d-like citation I made of [19th century Methodist commentator Joseph] Benson. I explained it and you said in your second reply, \u201cThat looks dishonest.\u201d<\/span> Then you continued (and upped) the rank insults with your post today:<\/p>\n He told me it was a simple mistake, but if so then it shows he\u2019s a poor researcher, searching for any tidbit that seems to favor his theories and blind to any contrary evidence. Sounds like an apologist to me.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Somehow you think that constructive dialogue can occur with an opinion\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0rock-bottom low, taken of the opponent. It\u2019s not possible, and I have no interest in a mud pie fight.<\/p>\n You\u2019ve engaged in relentless condescension and snobbery. You haven\u2019t overthrown my view at all. All you\u2019ve done is mock and ridicule it and shown your abominable attitude and pomposity. You made it clear more than once that you had absolutely no interest in a point-by-point dialogue (which I am always<\/em> interested in, if someone wants to be serious), and ridiculed my analogical and \u201cbackground\u201d arguments as utterly irrelevant: only fit to be ignored. You\u2019ve yet to even fully grasp my position. If you had, you wouldn\u2019t show such a great interest in\u00a0caricaturing<\/i>\u00a0it for the crowd here: knowing they will sop up whatever you say, and that I\u2019ll never receive fair treatment here.<\/p>\n I am grateful to Jonathan, though, for allowing me to at least respond to some extent underneath your atrocious hit-piece and to present my side of it. There were at least a few good smaller discussions. People can think what they will of me. I\u2019ve long since stopped caring about whether the sub-group of anti-theist atheists think I am \u201chonest\u201d or not. I know I am, so it\u2019s of no relevance at all to me if some snob like you decides in one day that I am both utterly incompetent in my very field (Christian apologetics) and dishonest. It means less than nothing. I have defended myself, yes, as most people would. But I know the truth about myself.<\/p>\n Anyone who is fair-minded and attempts even rudimentary objectivity can look at what I\u2019ve written and clarified here and make up their own minds.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Early artistic depictions of the Nativity show the star as a comet, and it\u2019s possible that the later depictions arose from misunderstanding when translating. I don\u2019t know who came up with this theory, but it\u2019s been proposed that the celestial phenomenon might have been Halley\u2019s Comet. That would mean either that memories of the comet became attached to the Jesus story, or that he was some years older than claimed in the Gospels. None of that is meant to imply that the story is anything more than legend.<\/span><\/p>\n Which of course is one of the natural explanations. Jonathan and Aaron opt for the supernatural explanation and mock the alternatives. I don\u2019t do that. I say that reasonable, able people hold both positions. I hold to the natural explanation and give many reasons for why I do.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t even know if there was a star, and the word of whoever wrote that Gospel isn\u2019t sufficient proof. Even if there were a star, and the purported event conformed to what we know of celestial mechanics, attributing the event to a sentient entity like a deity would make it a directed event rather than a natural phenomenon. A deity working through physical laws rather than in violation of them would still constitute another element in the causal chain.<\/span><\/p>\n Not necessarily. God in His providence could and would have (in this scenario) simply planned for the supernatural event (the virgin birth and incarnation of Jesus) to correspond with totally natural, not miraculous at all \u201csign events\u201d (two manifestations of the star of Bethlehem), just as the crucifixion aligned with two natural events: an eclipse and an earthquake.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>OpenClipart-Vectors<\/a>\u00a0(1-31-17)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/\u00a0Pixabay License<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Plus Further Related Exchanges with Aaron and a Few Others in an Atheist Combox Aaron Adair is an atheist physicist, who wrote the book,\u00a0The Star of Bethlehem: A Skeptical View (2013). He initially wrote me a cordial letter after seeing a few of my recent posts on that topic, and I responded in kind, at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":54058,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,1005],"tags":[12832,12838,626,12515,12532,12687,12684,12690,453,2365,12535,12769,4107,12553,9940,12772,12529,12766,12835,3188,12826,12559],"class_list":["post-54049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-christmas","tag-aaron-adair","tag-academic-snobs","tag-angry-atheists","tag-anti-theist-atheists","tag-astronomy-the-star-of-bethlehem","tag-atheists-the-magi","tag-atheists-the-star-of-bethlehem","tag-atheists-the-wise-men","tag-bethlehem","tag-christmas","tag-conjunctions","tag-conjunctions-in-daytime","tag-jonathan-ms-pearce","tag-jupiter","tag-magi","tag-mars","tag-star-of-bethlehem","tag-stars-in-the-daytime","tag-the-star-of-bethlehem-a-skeptical-view","tag-three-wise-men","tag-tippling-philosopher","tag-venus"],"yoast_head":"\n