Talk:Star of Bethlehem/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

The Star Project // Convergence of scriptures and astronomy

"Today in mere heartbeats, computer software, using Kepler’s calculations, can chart the 2,000-year-old sky over Judea."

This is an example of the unnecessary content of the section discussing The Star Project's theory as of early December 2015. My edit is designed for a "just the facts" approach, removing unneccesary ideas and conjectures of the argument by The Star Project, bringing it in line with other sections.Hello

How would you improve this section? What comments would you offer on my edit? Signaj90 (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I think you need to describe why you believe the capacity to understand by using mathematics what the positions of planets and other objects were at a point in history is unnecessary content. You also need to explain why twice you have eliminated the assertions about the nine data points found in the Bible. You have removed other referenced content, and you refer to the subject as being the Star Project, and it is not. Astronomy software eliminates guesswork. Frederick Larson of the Star Project is only one person. The topic is that there is potential harmony between scriptures and astronomy. I would also like to hear what you see as unnecessary ideas and conjectures. Keep in mind many, if not most readers, have little background in astronomy. Regards--Al Leluia81 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Signaj90, you may be well-intentioned, but there are problems with your edits. They promote bias. You have allowed fewer words for a position well-covered in the media than used for the "Comet" section, which is not considered a serious possibility by most authorities. Balance is created by covering what needs to be covered in proportion to importance, not by giving each possibility equal weight. You removed 10 references and a number of subjects not otherwise covered, and gave the section a name that does not distinguish it properly, removing the content and changing the subject. You also created seven errors in the references you retained. See the new section below entitled "Bias".Al Leluia81 (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I am responding briefly here to quickly acknowledge that I just now received notification of your note. I will change my notification settings to be more prompt in future. A more thorough reply will come by Friday. I appreciate your giving me the benefit of a doubt. Signaj90 (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll concede that it was incorrect etiquette and procedure to undertake the wholesale editing on my own. Let's undo my revisions and deal with it piecemeal. Are you open to that?Signaj90 (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. We can seek better balance here and I look forward to working with you on it.Al Leluia81 (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I am asking you to respond to the questions raised here. I pointed out on January 5 that your deletions created errors, and as of today, February 5, they remain on this site, and all other web sites that get their information from Wikipedia. An editor is required to seek consensus but that does not mean leaving errors on the page is acceptable indefinately.Al Leluia81 (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
As I said on January 20th above "let's undo my revisions and deal with it piecemeal" to which you said "yes" on January 22. I'd assumed that since you challenged the edits you would do the revision. I now understand you wished me to do it. Before we do so, please explain the errors on the page. The page loads correctly, and the links all go to the correct locations. What are these errors you have described? Are they technical? Or are you referring to the content? Signaj90 (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • When I said "yes" to your statement, "let's undo my revisions and deal with it piecemeal", my understanding was that you would quickly revert the errors, then we could look at your concerns in this section as then written. I was not my understanding that "piecemeal" referred to the whole article. I have created a user subpage with a suggested revision, and I will include some of the errors in your edits here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Al_Leluia81/Star_of_Bethlehem_Convergence_Section Al Leluia81 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I have made a revision without changing the title. It restores the content including the references and removes all of the reference errors. I hope this will be satisfactory. Al Leluia81 (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Planetary conjunction section

I have removed the final statement, "It also does not fit with an event seen at rising that might have started them on the journey." The previous reference was to Kidger, page 63, who wrote, "As a celestial sign post, it could have led the magi [sic] west to Jerusalem but never south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem." The (next-to-last) statement referenced to Kidger in this article is, "Since the conjunction would have been seen in the west at sunset it could not have led the magi south from Jerusalem to Bethlehem.[55]" Someone might think the final statement is also Kidger, when he said the opposite. If someone can reference this claim ("It also does not fit ..."), feel free to put it back in. Otherwise, it is either original research (opinion) or an error in reading Kidger's work. Al Leluia81 (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Dating the Birth

I have edited this section (currently called "Relating the star historically to Jesus' birth") to take out much of the bias that has entered this section. I have also referenced it more accurately. See WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Using terms like “Most modern scholars”, when there is nothing but a list of authors an editor prefers is a form of original research as well as being, when combined with editing out other views, a form of censorship. See also WP:WEASEL.

I have removed one reference in the current third sentence, because it read like this: “This is usually identified as the eclipse of March 13, 4 BC, although a few authors have suggested dates in 5 BC and 1 BC.”[99][100 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_of_Bethlehem&diff=707935690&oldid=707934969) That is a citation error, since Steinmann, for example, did not suggest both. Because of that I removed the reference “99” to Barnes and Bernegger, and have placed a [citation needed] by the correct place, since I can not confirm they are the ones to whom the editor was referring.

If the Barnes and Bernegger references are specifically to the 5 BC date, then this is the reference that may be returned where it currently needs a citation (I'm leaving the first < and last > off, and the first < before the break so the text is here instead of making a reference below, to make it easier to copy and paste. If someone can confirm those references, I will put it back in myself, in case that isn't clear): ref name="Herod4BC">Timothy David Barnes, “The Date of Herod’s Death,” Journal of Theological Studies ns 19 (1968), 204–19. br>P. M. Bernegger, “Affirmation of Herod’s Death in 4 B.C.,” Journal of Theological Studies ns 34 (1983), 526–31.</ref Al Leluia81 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is the WP:WEASEL link. Al Leluia81 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I found Barnes and Bernegger referenced on page 295 of Jack Finegan's 1998 Handbook of Biblical Chronology. I became curious about when and why this reference to Barnes and Bernegger was added, so I checked. It was February 22, 2016, and the diff is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_of_Bethlehem&diff=next&oldid=706280213 . Finegan says they (two independent JTS authors) prefer the 5 BC date for the following reason: "In this case the eclipse of the moon of Ant. 17.167 can be identified with a total lunar eclipse in the night of Sept 15/16, allowing seven months until Passover on Apr 17, 5 B.C." The references I have verified and so will return them to the article. The reason should be there as well: Before Ernest Martin, they independently identified the problem of just 29 days between the partial lunar eclipse of 4 BC and the Passover of that year.

I have returned the reference, have given a brief reason, and will add the Josephus reference when I have time. Al Leluia81 (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see that this section draws any connection between the star and the date of Jesus' birth. It should be deleted.PiCo (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
And as another has said in an edit summary, we're trying to consolidate all the material on the census of Quirinius in a single article by that name - the census material at least can be replaced by a link in the See Also section.PiCo (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This article lacks transitions. The issue however is a crucial part of the debate. The article Census of Quirinius has multiple issues including disputed neutrality, undue weight, and incompleteness. It’s quality, in my opinion, is quite poor. Even if its numerous challenges were overcome, it still would not justify removing information relevant here. See WP:NOTCENSORED Al Leluia81 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I am reverting back to the last good version because more edits, these made March 15, have taken place removing opposing views and creating dogmatic statements. Edits like these have taken place in this article for years, especially in this section. I reverted back to the original so other editors can see the main changes, then have added in the Josephus and other references. Specific problems I am removing include the following: The edit made at 07:51 changed wording (from “Some scholars” to “Scholars generally” and other changes) so it appears more certain there is agreement than there has been. Referring to the census in Luke edits removed accurate language (“Tipler suggests this took place in AD 6, nine years after the death of Herod …”) and stated it as if it is a fact: “This took place in AD 6” increasing bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_of_Bethlehem&diff=next&oldid=709205114 These edits were made with the edit summary: “too much emphasis here on fringe apologetic claims”. The edit made at 9:51 added more biased language by changing “Some scholars explain the apparent disparity as” an error by the author of Luke to: “The disparity is generally viewed today …” and then gives a long list of authors who may share this editor’s POV, but who do not represent a majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_of_Bethlehem&diff=next&oldid=710175354 The edit at 10:13 inserts an unreferenced opinion about who uses the translation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_of_Bethlehem&diff=next&oldid=710188561, and the edit at 10:44 unjustifiably deletes, and arguably, censors, information from ancient historians Josephus and Osorius with an edit summary saying it is “special pleadingand original reaearch”. Josephus in Antiquities 18.1.1 says the Jews first “took the report of a taxation heinously” but did not oppose it, then relates how Judas the Pharisee “became zealous to draw them to a revolt”; the referenced sentence was accurately stated. When a reference is wanted, it can be marked in curly brackets as cite needed instead of removing material. I have referenced the material. The 10:54 edit added more apologetics for atheism to this section, which would be better addressed in the Pious Fiction section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_of_Bethlehem&diff=next&oldid=710195849. The same is true for the apologetics added at 10:57. This article does not exist to promote beliefs either for or against the Bible or Christianity. It exists to fairly cover the topic. See WP:NPOV, WP:NOR WP:NOT CENSORED, WP:WEIGHT . Al Leluia81 (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Beyer text


The use of David W. Beyer as a source here is a good example of the problems that arise from using enthusiasts with a theory to prove instead of recognised scholars in peer-reviewed publications. Beyer is a terrible source.

Beyer - not a biblical scholar but a lawyer and amateur - examined published versions (i.e. printed books, not manuscripts) of Josephus' Antiquities in the British Library and the Library of Congress. He noted that the majority of versions published before 1544 read "twenty-second year" instead of "twentieth year" used in modern texts. He noted as well that in 1544 a Greek edition was published and since then "twentieth year" was quickly adopted as the correct reading. He speculated that since the "monumental task" of "committing the elaborate written characters of the language to print" was difficult for 16th century printers, a mistake had been made, unfortunately copied by all later printers.

Unfortunately, Beyer's account is a perfect example of the groundless confidence of the amateur. He says he has researched this down to the most relevant minutiae. He has done nothing of the sort.

If he had known anything of the process of manuscript transmission and the development of late Renaissance humanist studies he would have realised this.

There are a number of issues he has failed to grasp. All the texts he saw in the British Library and Library of Congress were printed versions, based on Latin translations - all that was available before 1544. These are late sources, generally recognised as unreliable - the dates may well have been changed to fit the expectations of the audience (not at all uncommon at the time, but a possibility Beyer did not consider).

The publication of 1544 was not 'the first Greek edition' but the first scholarly text based on Greek manuscripts, which until that point had not been available in the west. These documents, being much closer to the original Greek text, were recognised as being much more reliable. This was the work of the great Dutch scholar Arnoldus Arlenius who collected manuscripts and compared them carefully. His 1544 publication was immediately accepted as the most reliable, and not surprisingly subsequent publications followed his readings. (To suggest there was a "printing error" is an egregious insult both to a brilliant scholar and the professional skills of sixteenth century printers, who were highly literate people).

Arnoldus' reading was confirmed in the 19th century by the German scholar Benedikt Niese, who compared all the manuscripts available then and produced a new version of the Greek text that is the modern standard.

Josephus#Manuscripts.2C_textual_criticism.2C_and_editions
Beyer's version, then, is ill-informed nonsense and no favour is being done to Wikipedia readers by repeating it. Rather we need to focus on mainstream, peer-reviewed scholarly sources.
--Rbreen (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

David W. Beyer’s article Josephus Reexamined: Unraveling the Twenty-second Year of Tiberius was published by Mercer University Press (see “About Us”) and edited by E. Jerry Vardaman, who directed the the Cobb Institute of Archaeology at Mississippi State University in the United States of America (information from title page and cover note of Chronos, Kairos, Christos II). After Vardaman called the first Nativity Conference, the book Chronos, Kairos, Christos, (mentioned here), was published by Eisenbrauns, in honor of Jack Finegan, author of The Archeology of the New Testament and other books (see pages xv-xxiii for a bibliography of Finegan’s writings in Chronos, Kairos, Christos); (here is another book reviewed), and after Vardaman called Nativity Conference II (noted here), its papers were published in Chronos, Kairos, Christos II, in honor of Ray Summers. Jack Finegan presided over both conferences (page xi of Chronos, Kairos, Christos II), whose book Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible, published in 1964, was printed for a second time in 1998, and was called "a standard reference on the subject" in 1999 in this New York Times article on the Star of Bethlehem (see five paragraphs from the end) and in this review, and was again printed in 2015.
"Josephus Reexamined: Unraveling the Twenty-second Year of Tiberius", which is in Chronos, Kairos, Christos II was published by a reputable press, has been heard of in the world, and may even be seen in the future as a major article in solving the mystery of the Star of Bethlehem through more accurate dating of Herod’s death, and so also the birth of Christ. Finding the Star of Bethlehem seems to threaten those supporting the Pious Fiction religious perspective which could cause them to lose credibility, perhaps Rbreen is not included in this and makes these edits from another perspective, however, I have seen Beyer’s work rejected from articles by what appears to me to be from a POV rationale and Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored based on religious objections. I will deal with the problem here.
If a reliable source can be found that refutes Beyer’s discovery, it should be added to this Star of Bethlehem article, however, there is no justifiable reason for deleting my referenced material to Beyer’s work.
The argument made above against Beyer's work I have seen elsewhere online, never by true scholars but by bloggers and on wikis and in forums that revere the skeptic, atheist or humanistic perspective. On these websites, opinions are stated as facts and wiki writers use footnotes to lead readers to more of the writer’s own unreferenced opinion columns that generally use few if any reliable third-party sources in addition to primary sources; the argument stems from wiki-writers who do original research and substitute scorn for genuine scholarship. This argument suggests Beyer’s work should be dismissed because scholars who lived long ago are supposed to have chosen the finest manuscripts and to have done the best research, so we are not allowed to ask questions about how they came up with their 4 BC date, or ask any questions about why 32 of the 55 early copies of Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus which Beyer found in the British Library and Library of Congress, can not be used to infer their date of 4 BC, or to ask any questions about why all the earliest documents before 1544 AD said “the twenty-second” year of Tiberius, and not the “twentieth”, and so can not support that date. They suggest Beyer should have looked at later Latin documents as if then the problem would not exist, and imply that those favoring the traditional 4 BC date established in the 1800’s—though it can not account for the time needed between the lunar eclipse and Passover Josephus mentioned, or for the undocumented war, or for the astronomy--are nonetheless better scholars than someone who went and documented evidence.
This edit took place in the context of other edits involving dating that also removed reliable sources, changed wording and deleted views other than those giving support to the 4 BC date. Over the past year they include deleting Steinmann, Filmer and Finegan calling it “apologetics” (Dec-13-2015); reverted same day by another editor (Dec-13-2015); deleting Steinmann, Filmer and Finegan again (Dec-21-2015); I restore mention of 3/2 BC (Jan-19-16); deleted material referenced to Steinmann and Filmer (Feb-20-2016); changed wording implying census in AD 6 is a fact (Feb-20-2016); reverted by another editor Feb-22-2016);deleted Steinmann, Filmer (Finegan still gone) and other referenced material on dating (Feb-24-2016); reverted same day by another editor (Feb-24-2016); deleted Steinmann and Filmer again; wording changed to reflect bias (Feb-27-2016); I reverted same day (Feb-27-2016); deleted Steinmann and Filmer and brought back long and improperly sampled references (Feb-27-2016); implies census in AD 6 is a fact (Mar-15-2016); adds opinion “The disparity is generally viewed today” (Mar-15-2016); removed referenced material about Quirinius and census date again (Mar-15-2016); then changed from "However, there is some debate about the correct reading of Luke 2:2" to POV edit (Mar-15-2016); POV edits (Mar-15-2016); I reverted (Mar-16-2016); IP makes first edit to change it back. (Mar-17-2016); I reverted possible sock puppet account (March-18-2016); I added a simple (relatively speaking) explanation on how the 4 BC date is inferred and newer scholarship (Mar-18-2016); deleted Josephus and Beyer, on claim Beyer is a poor quality reference (Mar-19-2016); remains current version today, Mar-25-2016. Rbreen made a similar argument in 2007 against one sentence on Beyer being added to the Census of Quirinius article under the section heading “Possibly useful online reference for Herod Chronology”.
Beyer’s work has been heard of worldwide and is part of the debate on the date of Herod’s death. Sometimes his name is omitted, but Beyer’s discovery of what is in the older manuscripts of Antiquities has been online book reviews, blogs and forums, and in many articles. I am not saying all these are for our purposes, reliable sources, but rather that the information is out in the world as part of the discussion and it undermines Wikipedia’s credibility when it is not here also. Beyer’s work arguably has helped in finding one possibility for the Star of Bethlehem that includes that a star "stopped" over Bethlehem, which has been confirmed through astronomy. Beyer is cited on the Star of Bethlehem website at the end of the "Dating Christ’s Birth" Section and is also the second link in the Academic Resources section. Larson used astronomer CraigChester’s 1996 Imprimis article, and Chester had reported: "As a clincher, it has recently been discovered that Josephus himself dated Herod’s death; a sixteenth century copyist’s error is responsible for the incorrect date, which has been propagated to modern editions of Josephus". It is at the middle of paragraph 6 under "The Death of Herod". In the original archived pdf of December 1996 this statement is near the midpoint of the right column on page 4. Beyer is also here, an online magazine, at the end in the caption: "Image: HEROD OF JUDEA: The birth of Christ and the appearance of the Star of Bethlehem have been hard to pinpoint because the death date of Herod has been listed as 4 B.C. possibly due to scholarly errors. The earliest manuscripts of Josephus place the death of Herod at 1 B.C." It is reference #84 in Ernest Martin, and has been in local news. The importance of the dating issue brought to the front in this article on the Star of Bethlehem (astronomer Bidelman’s comments. Beyer’s work is cited in a bibliography (scroll to #9904); and it is in an essay(reference #32; in The Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism page 6 (14 in article) as note #22; in an online journal (the last reference, #32); in a dissertation(page 266), and has been cited in languages other than English, including in a computer-animated slideshow written in German(Beyer is cited in slide #28); written in Polish (see article mid-page #346, or online page 7 for “DW Beyer”) translated into English (you may need to scroll down); and cited in Russian (scroll down to “Beyer, David W” in the area at the top for English) and also in the Czech language(scroll to reference #9 and #10); and its English translation is here.
I am not content to leave this article in its current censored status and will have reverted this edit prior to posting this response. Regards-- Al Leluia81 (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
You clearly have no real understanding of the concept that not every source is of equal validity and not every argument is of equal value. You also appear not to understand the concept of censorship. You accuse others of POV pushing, despite apparently being dedicated to pushing your own fringe point of view without being willing even to engage with other views. I have reverted your edit for the reasons stated. If you disagree, I suggest you seek arbitration - and see whether others agree with you. --Rbreen (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I contrast above my sources of my information with the argument that comes from blogs and wikis, and encourage you to read it and verify it. Having not only 4 BC as a date for Herod's death but other views is not a fringe point of view. I have deleted nothing to promote a POV, and encourage you to take a close look at my editing record on this article. Astronomers began changing from the 4 BC decades ago. I have engaged with other views at length although it has decreased time for editing. I encourage you to reconsider your views. Al Leluia81 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard

There is a topic at WP:RSN about Hutchison's books, which, frankly, seem to be WP:SPS or at least unreliable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Those books are either self-published or published by vanity press or by WP:FRINGE publishers. In any case, they are not acceptable as reliable sources inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Those books may safely be considered original research. See WP:NOT#OR for details. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

About religion studies: scholars study the writings of Rudolf Steiner, Jiddu Krishnamurti and Abd-ru-shin in peer-reviewed journals, but they do not consider the writings of Steiner, Krishnamurti and Abd-ru-shin as reliable. Just as biologists study frogs, but the frogs themselves aren't biologists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

So, for Wikipedia reputable religion scholars write reliable sources, but Steiner, Krishnamurti and Abd-ru-shin did not write reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Enuma Anu Enlil

The possibility that the story is related to Enuma Anu Enlil has not been sufficiently discussed in the article. The fact is that the signs Larsen is referring to, both mean that the king of Akkad (i.e. Mesopotamia) will die. Anyone could google that up.

If Venus reaches Sulpae [Jupiter] and they follow upon each other: high water will carry off the land. If Venus reaches ditto and passes it: a mighty high water will come. If Venus and ditto come close: reign of destruction (concerning) the king of Amurru. If Venus comes near ditto: the land altogether – brother will become hostile to his brother. If Venus enters Jupiter (UD.AL.Tar): the king of Akkad will die, the dynasty will change, either a soldier will go out or the enemy will send a message (asking for peace) to the land. (Reiner, Erica and Pingree, David “Babylonian Planetary Omens Part Three, page 45)
And the matter of the planet Jupiter is as follows: If it turns out of the Breast of Leo, this is ominous. It is written in the Series as follows: ... someone will rise, kill the king, and seize the throne. (https://books.google.se/books?id=vYluiWFPsjMC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=if+jupiter+retrogrades+regulus+rochberg&source=bl&ots=SK3bK_ndde&sig=olbbQfUinFBNU8-jRam_2BRu87k&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSy_rttbnSAhXEXiwKHb9HDPYQ6AEIKDAB#v=onepage&q=if%20jupiter%20retrogrades%20regulus%20rochberg&f=false)

That Venus has a hiding place is also easy to verify:

If Venus is seen in the west and reaches the place of the niirtu and disappears, the gods will be reconciled with Amurru. (https://books.google.se/books?id=vYluiWFPsjMC&pg=PA148&dq=rochberg+venus+hidden+place+amurru&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie9p3ftrnSAhUGliwKHc54BNMQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=rochberg%20venus%20hidden%20place%20amurru&f=false)

In Revelation 12 there is a woman seeking her own place where she keeps out of sight from the snake. She stays there for 1260 days. The distance in time between the signal of the "reign of destruction (concerning) the king of Amurru" and the last time Venus is still in her secret place is something like 1257 days, and add a couple of days to that and Venus has started to leave her hiding place. Thus the signal of war and the signal of peace are 3,5 years apart, which happens to be the time mentioned in Revelation 12 (perhaps written by John the evangelist) and the time Jesus is active according to the Gospel of John.

If you use a star program you will see the hydra (=seven headed snake in Babylonian mythology) being hovered by Mercury, which easily can be demonstrated is the god Nabu, which is pictured as an angel. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabu) During the summer 2 BC the snake falls to earth while being hovered by an angel-like war god, just as the snake is in Revelation 12. The red color of the snake and the fact that it has crowns mirrors how Mercury can make Venus red and give Venus a crown.

Finally, the first date picked by Larsen, when Jupiter passes Regulus, coincides with Venus being dimmed by the sun from her right side (=north in the morning), which means women will have difficulty giving birth. (https://books.google.se/books?id=j1cHZvA3coEC&pg=PA93&dq=if+venus+is+dimmed+women&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHic2_u7nSAhWCCywKHeYZARMQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=if%20venus%20is%20dimmed%20women&f=false) The woman in Revelation 12 is crying "out in labor and in pain to give birth".

Thus, all the elements of Revelation 12: a woman giving birth in pain, a woman hiding for 1260 days, a fight between an angel and a seven headed snake and a flood, all of these elements are possible to verify as celestial events interpreted from a Babylonian point of view. Notíce that Larsens description in no way rests on Enuma Anu Enlil. He only builds his case on the fact that the event in 3 BC looks like a woman dressed in the sun with the moon under her feet and 12 stars above her head, and that the merger of Venus and Jupiter should be interpreted as a birth.

If you count which theory of the two, Larsen's or Kihlman's that rest best on evidence, it is clearly the facts mentioned in the book The Star of Bethlehem and Babylonian Astrology: Astronomy and Revelation Reveal What the Magi Saw by Dag Kihlman. (https://www.amazon.com/dp/9163929643/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1488514732&sr=8-1&keywords=dag+kihlman)

Yes, it is self published, but hey, last time I checked my calendar it was 2017 and the book market has changed a bit since the last millennium. 213.67.241.199 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is self-published, but more to the point, nobody cares. If I could find sufficient reference to this self-published work, then we could include it. But I can't, and you pretty much admit that you couldn't either. At this point, it's just one theory which has failed (thus far) to gain any traction. that's why I keep deleting it. Mangoe (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, given the fact that the book was published two days ago it would not be easy to find references.213.67.241.199 (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Then it certainly isn't notable yet, and WP isn't here to provide publicity for it. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no way that a self-published book will be considered a reliable source for this article. I don't think any more time should be spent on this proposed addition. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star of Bethlehem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star of Bethlehem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Conjunction

This article says that astronomers have attempted to link this to an event such as a conjunction of Venus and Jupiter, but I always thought that it was linked with a conjunction of Mars and Jupiter (I could be wrong, but I thought there was a conjunction of Mars and Jupiter around about 6 B.C.). Vorbee (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Every information inside Wikipedia is a matter of WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Jesus was born on Saturday (Sabbath) April 17, 6 BC

See https://www.michaelmolnar.com/ . 73.85.201.50 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Deny sock

I have applied WP:DENY to Victor1500 and his WP:SOCKS. The other removal was a WP:COI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Planetary Conjunction in Dec 2020

According to this (video) and this, astronomers say Jupiter and Saturn will appear almost like one star from earth's view on December 21, 2020. This is a so-called "Christmas Star" event, which happens about every 400 years. The last time this event was actually visible from Earth was AD 1226. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

So what? Or, to put it more nicely, I hope you don't expect somebody to add something to this article connecting a perfectly natural astronomical event to a religion. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, there is this article in Astronomy magazine, stating: "As noted by Johannes Kepler in the 17th century, a similar conjunction occurred in 7 BCE and could be the astronomical origin of the Star of Bethlehem that guided the wise men." And I see that this connection between a natural astronomical event and Christianity is already mentioned in the article. — Loadmaster (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit war

@Archaeopteroid: We accept reliable sources only. Yours aren't. Do not spam this article with WP:BLOGS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

So, I don't know who the author of those claims is. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Bible scholarship is an academic field, the history of Western esotericism is an academic field, astrology isn't an academic field, it is a pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Meaning Wikipedia does not recognize works of astrology as WP:RS (as opposed to works in the history of Western esotericism, published e.g. by BRILL). Meaning Wikipedia does not recognize journals written for true believers in astrology as WP:RS. And even less WP:BLOGS written for such people. It is fine and dandy for someone who wears the hat of a historian (i.e. publish or perish) to write about what astrologers thought in Jesus's time. But we don't accept the self-published works of true believers. Same applies to the works of true believers in Kaballah. For a modern historian it is fine and dandy to describe the beliefs from Jesus's time. But not so for a modern astrologer. Wikipedia recognizes that historians are bona fide academics, it does not do that for astrologers. We have no reason to believe that that self-published astrologer would be an expert in the historical method. Morals: historians write WP:RS, astrologers don't. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

If you want to know what's according to the WP:RULES, see History of astrology. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Mercury/Venus conjunction - Jan 7, 4BC

https://www.academia.edu/40293848/The_Star_of_Bethlehem_astronomically_identified "Really, an unusual astronomical event can be observed on the January 7, 4 BC in morning before the sunrise, on the eastern horizon. It was the conjunction of Mercury and Venus, located exactly over the place where the sun rose after about a hour." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.115.254.217 (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Observed? Pending good weather, it could have been observed. Otherwise it hasn't been.
Also: no indication that is has been peer-reviewed, it therefore fails WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_of_Bethlehem/Archive_2&oldid=1214168966"