INTRODUCTION The Birth of Christ is recorded in Scripture. No further information is necessary for us to understand that Jesus, true God, Himself, came to earth to live among men and to suffer and die to redeem mankind from the consequences of their sins. Scripture briefly mentions some of the history surrounding His birth. However, these snippets need further historical understanding to give us a better perspective, and satisfy our natural curiosity. Unfortunately much of the history is buried in antiquity, and although it is continually researched, none of it can be established beyond a doubt. Every historical item has a range of acceptance among the historians. The scriptural account itself is certainly true in all details. But our understanding of the account depends greatly on translation, which sometimes can be legitimately disputed. If our own translation differs from one widely circulated, there is always the chance that it is inferior, even though it better fits our individual background. Our understanding of the environment and settings surrounding the events being described can also greatly alter the meaning of a sentence, the proper translation being the one compatible with the actual circumstances. I offer an example: Consider the sentence, “I will take that watch.” If that were spoken by a sailor aboard a ship, he would be offering to work a particular shift. When uttered by a customer in a store, it is an offer to purchase a timepiece. The Scriptural accounts are reproduced below in the traditional King James Version, KJV. Words in Italics will be the subjects of comments. LUKE 2: 1 – 5 1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus , that all the world should be taxed. 2 ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) 3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. Caesar Augustus decreed a taxing, the first, when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. The general consensus is that “Taxing” is better translated as “enrollment” for either a census or taxing purposes. Enrollment processes took place on several occasions during the Roman rule. The word “first,” which is applied to this particular enrollment, if properly translated and understood, can be a key in determining the date of Christ’s birth. The scoffers in the early 1900’s claimed Cyrenius did not exist. The church literature countered that he had been lost to history. It is now accepted that he was a famous Roman general better known as Quirinius, who was a special friend and agent of Augustus, and was sent to Syria and Judea more than once, to enforce taxation and control rebellions. For a time he was the Governor of Syria. The NIV translation differs somewhat: This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria. It has been generally established that Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria about 6 AD. But this is ten years after the accepted time of Herod’s death, who we know was the King of Israel at the time of Jesus’ birth. There are several historical theories, both among believers and scoffers, that are offered as resolutions of this seeming discrepancy. One version notes that Quirinius was in Syria and Judea around 6 BC, (BC, not AD) and was in charge somewhat in a capacity of acting governor for a time. This roughly fits the NIV above. Another, rather awkward, translation has been proposed that says this census took place during the first time he was the governor. I suggest that the preferred translation is: “This was the previous enrollment to the one taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” The Greek word translated “first” is legitimately translated “previous.” “Previous” is a word not used anywhere in either the NIV nor KJV to translate this word, but the words “before” and “former” are both found, in both translations for that same Greek word. In a number of other uses of the word the context would also easily allow “previous” to be legitimately substituted, as I suggest. For example, as in Rev. 21:4. “for the former things are passed away.” (KJV) The Greek word is protos. Pro simply means “before”, and protos is the superlative form. So the literal translation is: “This was the taxing most prior to that taken when Quirinious was governor of Syria.” “When” is not present in the Greek, but was added to accommodate the English format. This word illustrates a common problem confronting translators. People speaking different languages don’t always employ the same logical processes to allow a particular word to express various other thoughts. So in Greek the word for “way before” can in context also mean “chief in rank,” “first in order,” “former,” or “previous.” My high-school classmates and I, struggling with translation, agreed that “those Greeks didn’t think the same way we do.” In Acts 5:37, Luke refers again to a taxing (the same Greek word being used.) This time Luke’s record had no need to point out which taxing was involved, since it is a famous event that happened while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All modern historians agree. The Acts passage describes a famous revolt to this taxing that was led by a ‘Judas of Galilee.’ So this serves as a convenient reference point to identify the taxing of Joseph and Mary as the “previous one.” So we need to examine the previous taxing enrollment. It is somewhat obscure. The Roman world had periodic censuses. There is some evidence that one or more of these may have required journeys to home towns, although historians disagree. However, none of the known census enrollments fits the scenario of Jesus’ birth, time-wise. Additionally, taxing of individuals, personally, from Rome was almost unheard of. Romans depended on the local rulers to tax the people and subsequently pay tribute. But their legions of soldiers, recruited from all over the world, had created such acute financial problems for Augustus that that he levied a special empire-wide inheritance tax to pay the army. This required individual enrollment. The second inheritance tax carried out by Quirinius in 6AD is well recorded, but some records refer to a previous assessment that had not been completely successful, and by that time had fizzled out. It is thought that General Quirinius, was a logical overseer of fundraising for the army. He had been sent to Syria and Judea for a period some time during Herod’s latter reign. (Herod died in 4 BC.) Some evidence will be covered later that indicates the taxing and Christ’s birth may have been in 6BC. The house and lineage of David It would be difficult for historical records to convey the details here. Speculation may be able to supply them, if done with a sincere attempt to remain truly compatible with Scripture and credible historical evidence. Where Scripture records the commandment against coveting the neighbor’s house , Luther recognized a direct connection to inheritance , and connected them in his Catechism. Joseph was of the house and lineage of David . “The economy of Scripture” limits the anecdotes of one Gospel account from repetition in another, except for major events. But why does Luke’s account use both house and lineage? They must be separate items. It seems that one denotes descent, the other partaker in the inheritance. A collection of inheritance tax in the Israelite realms had to be largely associated with real estate. In areas controlled by Jewish laws if a family sold land, it reverted to the original family in the “Jubilee year,” observed every fifty years. So there was a rather stable linkage between family lines and land holdings that survived for centuries. Jesse was a landowner in Bethlehem. David, his son, certainly added to it. Solomon, David’s son, was among the richest of all times. And all of them were in Joseph’s family tree. There followed many rulers, Babylonian captivity, reconstruction, wars and turmoil, but Bethlehem was still recognized as the city of David, and David’s descendents and heirs were rather well documented. The total estate may have included the town of Bethlehem and land for miles around. There were obviously many heirs, some of whom probably owned a small portion, not enough to live on, but able to generate some rent. It was especially easy for the tax collectors to enforce the registration and payment, since the penalty would be disinheritance. So Joseph went to register his claim and pay his tax, with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child . She went along because she was with child so that her baby could be registered as an heir. The Christian writer, Justin Martyr, said that the registrations of Joseph and of Mary’s Baby, could be read in the Bethlehem town records in his day. Those records have all since disappeared. CONCLUSION: Jesus was born in Bethlehem at the time of the Inheritance-tax enrollment, the one previous to the taxing enrollment enforced while Quirenius was governor of Syria. LUKE 2: 6 - 7 6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn . The Inn The “motels” of those days were called “caravansaries.” They had a large secure enclosed yard for the pack- animals, surrounded by a wall containing semi-covered stalls and merchant shops. There were usually one or more buildings with storage on the ground floor and second or third floors, the “Inn.” These were divided into cubicles with large window opening to catch the breeze and dispel the odor from the yard. Fabric drapes were used to block the breeze in cold weather. Whether such a unit was located at that time in Bethlehem has been questioned, but the text is clear that it was a place having at least one stable and a public rental room in which no space was available. (A ‘bed and breakfast’ perhaps?) The Greek word used by the Spirit, here translated ‘inn’ was used elsewhere in the Bible in only two other places, in Luke and Mark, for the room where the disciples prepared the Lord’s passover supper . Many edifices in that hilly region were built beside a cave that was used as a stable, another distinct possibility for Jesus’ birth place. LUKE 2: 21 - 35 21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, conceived in the womb. 22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present [him] to the Lord; 23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. 25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same man [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. 26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. 27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, 28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, 29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: 30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, 31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; 32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. 33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. 34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this [child] is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; 35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. Simeon; a just and devout man. Mary was required by the ceremonial law not to enter a “sanctuary” for at least forty-one days after giving birth to a son, but then to offer the sacrifice. For this they went to the temple in Jerusalem, where they encountered Simeon. Here Scripture reveals insights into the society into which our Savior was born. Simeon was devout, best described as a worshipper of the true God. He strove to worship in the manner that God had ordered through Moses. And there were many like him. God was still blessing the people through the temple worship and sacrifices, although Jesus had arrived, and intended to abolish those worship modes through His new covenant. But there was also great turmoil both in an out of the religious realm. The religious leaders had corrupted the doctrine and replaced it with many pagan ideas. There was a frenzy of anticipation for the arrival of the Messiah. The devout were awaiting Jesus. The majority Persians, and allow Israel to rule the world. The Pharisees expected him to kick the Sadducees out of the temple, and vise versa. Several other sects expected him to place their own parochial leaders in charge. Many, like the sect that produced the Dead-Sea Scrolls, had morphed him into two, one military, the other a religious leader. The people were well aware of the messianic prophecies in the book of Daniel where the numbers of years add up to that particular era as the time for Messiah to appear. Several opportunists had already claimed to be He. Each had amassed a following, and then disappeared or been executed for rebellion. Others have also been reported to have come later. Some evidence for a date of Christ’s birth in late 7BC or early 6BC Scriptural evidence is spotty, but contains check points that plainly rule out much of the published speculation. Herod ruled at the time, and died in 4BC. His three sons divided his empire. Joseph, Mary, and the Baby came back from Egypt when Archelaus, Herod’s son, ruled in Judea. They feared him and went to Gallilee, although Herod’s other son, Antipas ruled up there. (Antipas was the ‘Herod’ in the crucifixion narratives.) The reason to fear one, and not completely unknown, and certainly better known in Judea. When Baby Jesus was brought to the temple it was well noticed. His true identity was known to many others: Some were His mother and step-father, relatives in Bethlehem, shepherds, Mary’s cousin and her associates, temple priests, Simeon and Anna and the rest of the temple crowd. Herod had certainly been military surely remembered. After Herod’s death, Mary and Joseph dared to come back, but not to Jerusalem, for continued fear of the King, who was now Archelaus. In Gallilee it was now Antipas, but Jesus was less known up there. For that and perhaps other reasons, he was less of a threat, and the family settled in Nazareth. In Luke 2:41 we are told that Jesus parents went to Jerusalem annually for Passover. Scripture does not say that they brought Jesus along. It is doubtful that they would have taken Him into the danger zone starting when He was 4-5 years old. But in 6AD Archelaus was deposed (An action overseen by Quirenius , incidentally) and exiled to Gaul. Verse 42 ff relates that when Jesus was 12 years old they all went to Jerusalem and Jesus made prominent contact with the temple priests. In 6AD Quirenius not only deposed Archelaus, but also revived the inheritance tax. Joseph and Jesus possibly needed to renew their registration in Bethlehem, which would have furnished His parents another reason to bring Jesus along to the Passover in Jerusalem. Jesus was twelve at that time, indicating that He was born in late 7BC or early 6BC. THE “WISE MEN” The previous centuries to Christ’s birth saw great strides in science. Astronomy, because of its use in navigation as well as in astrology, was considered the "queen of the sciences." Excellent sextants and other instruments had been devised. These instruments were calibrated and augmented by noting the reflections of stars and the sun in a deep well, which showed that the star was directly overhead. The tilt of the earth's axis was regularly measured and tracked by many, including Pythagoras, in 515 BC. The earth's circumference was measured with an error no larger than 25 miles by Eratosthenes and others. The distance to the moon still had an error of 8%, and, unfortunately, the distance to the sun awaited some hundreds of years for a measurement to be devised. Particularly active in these activities were the Magi of northern Persia. It is completely false that the ancients thought the earth to be flat. Although ancient writings exist showing that some educated writers were still unaware of the scientific evidence regarding the solar system, most astronomers, navigators, architects, and their associates were well aware of the basics. Astrology was rampant, and the prophecy of Balaam (Num 24:17) mentioning a star marking Mesiah’s birth was causing a renewed interest in star-watching. This interest extended far beyond the land of Israel. THE MAGI and the STAR OF BETHLEHEM MATTHEW 2: 1 - 2 1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east , and are come to worship him. MAGI The Greek here uses the term “Magi”. The translation 'wise men' is poor. (1) Of course they were wise in seeking Jesus, but the word is the plural of Magos, the root of the word 'magic'. Just as Levites were known as priests of the LORD GOD, Magi were known as priests of the order of Zoroaster. They were the overseers of the Median religion. The only other use of the term in Scripture is translated 'sorcerer'. The Magi were a Median society, known as scientists, scholars, astronomers (and astrologers), and priests. At the time of Daniel the Magi were the chief advisors to the king. Daniel, himself, for a time was the chief Magos. By the time of Christ’s birth the Magi were consulted by many rulers, including the Roman Senate. They were not exclusively Medes and Persians, and included learned men from elsewhere, probably some Jews as well. Scripture tells us that these were Magi who had observed a star. History tells us that many Magi were astronomers. It is then in keeping with scripture to infer that among this group of Magi were astronomers, and that they did as astronomers were known to do. They were far more advanced than is generally thought. Ancient astronomers had many types of instruments, and those that have been preserved were not only accurate, but are works of art. I use "sextant" in a generic sense, to avoid scientific jargon that may mislead. The actual instrument in common use at that time is called an 'astrolabe', which served the same purpose. When astronomers traveled they carried sextants and sand-glass devices for timing. Water timers were common as well. They took turns counting their and their camel's steps. Most desert travel was necessarily at night. They took frequent sightings of the major stars, and all of the visible planets. Whenever they came to a well, they noted which stars might be reflected in it. That reflected star would necessarily be overhead at that time. Some owned a mirror with a hole in it, particularly useful for observing a reflection in a well without their heads getting in the way. It is a natural conclusion that these astronomers did the same. (2) These Magi are not identified in scripture as ‘three’, or ‘kings’. They would typically require several men to make the star observations, and their party would probably have included an ambassador and servants. HIS STAR What the star of Bethlehem really was has been the subject of much speculation for centuries. Few are true to scripture in identifying it as a single, miraculous, unique star. Others suggest conjunctions of one planet with another, or a planet with a fixed star. Comets, eclipses, and miraculous objects that hover low (Like UFOs) have all been touted. A claim that is quite prevalent theologically, and appears in commentaries, is that the ‘star’ could be low enough, point the way, and identify a certain house. I suspect these authors are unaware of the ancient astronomical ability to determine whether a star is directly overhead. Scripture calls it a star, and would describe UFO-like objects with other terms, as is done today. (3) I consider the most likely candidate to be the unique star that suddenly appeared in125 BC. It was miraculous, in that no other star has ever behaved as it was reported to behave. This unique star was bright enough to be seen in daylight. The great astronomer Hiparchus observed the birth of the star and recorded it for us. The Chinese also recorded it. Ptolemy records the star's death, when he wrote in 150 AD. "It can scarcely be seen." The star grew up in a few days' span, remained brilliant for a much longer time, then faded gradually. It was not a super nova, since it lasted much longer than a modern astronomer considers possible, and was, of course, unexplainably brighter. The Christian writer, Ignatious, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, described the Bethlehem Star as a unique star, and described its brightness "above all stars, or the sun, or moon" about 110 AD. He used the miraculous nature of the star as an apologetic for Jesus as Messiah. His account of general society being awed and puzzled by this star denies the idea of only a few Magi observing it one night, low and indicating a particular house, and only known generally by the divine inspiration of Matthew. It does match the daystar described here, however. This daystar is ignored by most speculators on the Bethlehem star, and is unknown to most of them. It is sometimes referred to as “Hiparchus’ or Ptolemy’s nova,” and is assumed that each probably lasted a few months as do the novas. Modern astronomers dismiss all ancient data as primitive and inaccurate for reasons I have determined to be totally defective. (4) The star was located by Hiparchus accurately enough for us to expect it to pass directly over Bethlehem around Easter time during the years of Jesus' ministry. When Matthew wrote about it, perhaps 175 years after it first appeared, there was no need for explanation, as everybody had seen the daystar -- it was simply there. The Christians also were all familiar with it as "His star". Matthew expected to be understood when he said the Magi had "seen His star in the East." Peter in his epistle describes Christian Faith as when "The day star arises in your heart." (Commentators who think this is Venus, which is briefly visible in the twilight, ignore the fact that worship of Venus was inimical to faith, and could never be used in that context by Peter. ) Avoid astrology. Until modern times most astronomers were also astrologers. Many still are. Astronomy is wholesome and useful. Astrology is condemned by God. Many people confuse them. Scripture declares that God named the stars. To a great extent His original names can still be found, translated into many languages. Many documents of ancient historians and Jewish rabbis indicate that the figures in the zodiac were originated by Seth and Enoch, to illustrate the fundamentals of God’s plan of salvation. The role of Enoch in cataloging stars is also mentioned in the Dead Sea scrolls. The zodiac is traceable with little variation as far back as archeology can probe. The pagan mythology bears little resemblance to its original meaning. Christian authors have done a credible job of translating the probable original meanings. A simple illustration is Orion, claimed to be made/owned by God, twice in Job, and once in Amos. In Orion’s side is the star, ‘Wounded’, and ‘Bruised’ is in his leg. His other ankle is marked by a star named ‘The Foot That Crushes’, and immediately beneath it is the head of the serpent. Compare this to genesis 3:15 where God says to the devil/serpent, “He will crush your head, and you will strike His heel.” The day-star was located in the constellation named "The Desire of the Nations" or Coma, completely obliterating all the surrounding stars by its unimaginable brightness and beauty. Since Coma graphically represents the "Son of the Virgin", and since the unusual new star was located in the very head of the child, as it was generally drawn in the pictorial representations of the Zodiac, most God-fearing people considered it a divine sign that the Messiah was about to appear. So that, I believe, is most likely “His Star.” IN THE EAST. (2) Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east , and are come to worship him. The Greek for ‘East’ is literally “In the Sunrise.” That word is generally used in Greek for the East, as in the previous verse, “Wise men from the east.” But I earnestly question the translation ‘East’ in this least none used by the Spirit in the New Testament, to denote “East.” So it is in no way awkward to find the same word immediately used in its natural sense of “sunrise,” particularly by an astronomer talking about a star. As our globe circles the sun our relatively near-by sun appears to walk around the far distant star-field annually, eastward. Its rate is two of its diameters per day. To our natural perspective, however, since our “day” and time is synchronized to the sun, we observe the star field seeming annually to rotate around us, each star moving westward, the distance of two sun- diameters, daily. (5) It is useful to remember that this slow movement of the sun relative to the stars is independent of the daily revolution of the whole system westward, where the sun and all its accompanying stars rise in the east and set in the west, the stars rendered invisible by sunlight during the day. If on a particular morning a certain star rises with the sun, it is not visible in the glare. But the next day, it is two sun diameters ahead of the sun. So it rises two diameters ahead. The brighter ones then are very briefly visible, and the observer knows, “Yesterday the star was neck and neck with the sun.” The date when a star rises with the sun has always been the most accurate means of locating its position. The term is “In the heliacal rising.” This has been the standard jargon of astronomers and astrologers forever, and simply means “Located on the same celestial longitude as the sun on that particular date.” It could actually be said that the star is “in conjunction with the sun” at that time. And that is the Greek word employed by the Holy Spirit through Matthew, when the Magi said, “We have seen His star in the “sunrise” (heliacal rising), and have come to worship Him.” (The NIV translates it as, “We have seen His star in its rising . . .”) Note that on a day when a star is heliacal in Iraq it will generally also be heliacal in Jerusalem, or in America, since the sun will have moved less than a diameter in the time between dawns in those places. When a star is heliacal, like the sun it is at the zenith at noon, when stars are normally difficult to see, except for some reported comets and, of course, the day star. Three months after heliacal, on a known date, the star is directly overhead at dawn. (The instant of dawn in ancient times was always easier to determine accurately than midnight, although sophisticated astronomers could always determine time by using their sextants on known stars or observing them on the horizon.) Another three month later, six months after Heliacal, the star is overhead at midnight. The star being overhead at Bethlehem is a prominent part of Matthews’s later narrative. The star could pass the zenith on any day of the year, since it was visible during the day. But time of day when it is overhead depends upon the time of year, and the star overhead at midnight would occur only on one single night of the year. Although we cannot be certain, the most probable is that they sought the star overhead at midnight. That would have happened approximately at Easter time, a very significant time. Magi were equipped to determine midnight. A lesser probability would be overhead at dawn, easier to measure, and happening around Christmas,. But as developed later, that would have less significance. MATTHEW 2: 3-6 3 When Herod the king had heard [these things], he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. 5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, [in] the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Herod and All Jerusalem Were Troubled. King Herod now heard about a new king of the Jews, known to the Magi, but not previously to him. This was obviously very disturbing to him, but not to the people. He was not popular, but they had another major worry. About sixty years previously Magi had gone to the Roman senate with a similar announcement of a new infant destined to be the Roman Emperor. In that case there were many children killed to prevent his survival, Was this destined also for Jerusalem? Why This Particular Year? The Magi needed another reason to come in that particular year. The star was level with the sun (heliacal) in September for several years running, and overhead at midnight in March. This was true for the entire period that Jesus’ birth might have occurred. There are three possibilities I entertain for the Magi to have chosen this particular year. 1-God may have given them a special revelation. There are pros and cons to this, as well as the other two. 2-They may have ascertained the date when the latitude as well as the longitude would have placed the star directly over Bethlehem. When they were on the site, they actually determined that it was overhead. But their calculation in advance would necessarily have had an uncertainty wide enough to include Jerusalem. Although that calculation would have been a challenge, I cannot rule out their ability to have made it. We cannot make it today, since we do not possess an accurate enough description of the star’s position. They, however, would have measured it over the years, and would have perfected a very precise location. 3-This is the one I have known since childhood and still have a preference for: There was a well-known ancient prophecy, whether genuine or not does not matter, that the great King of the Jews would be born when a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn should occur in the "House of the Hebrews" (Pisces). This had happened when Moses was born, and again when Cyrus was born. [Isaiah 44:48 foretells how God would send Cyrus, years later to release the Babylonian captives, and give them permission and aid to go back to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.] So, prophecy or not, in both cases the conjunction occurred, the man was born, and the Hebrew slaves were freed. Josephus (6) states that it was when the Egyptian priests warned Pharaoh of the conjunction that he started having the Hebrew boys killed, although Moses escaped by being hid in a floating basket. Should one believe an ancient legend, particularly one that seems so akin to astrology? Certainly not. It is strongly suspicious in this and in any other case where it is not recorded in Scripture. But Jewish history is clear that it was considered settled fact, at least among the rabbis. And other secular history confirms that it was widely believed elsewhere. It certainly was considered truth by the Magi. Jupiter and Saturn are in conjunction about every eleven years. The location of the conjunction will fall somewhat randomly among the twelve “signs” of the zodiac. Most ethnic groups were associated with one or another of these signs. The early Israelites had the individual sign of each of their tribes inscribed on their marching banners. The full tradition, going back before the Egyptian captivity, was that the nation represented by the sign hosting the conjunction was welcoming a newborn king. Pisces was the traditional sign of the Hebrews. Sixty years previously, in 63 BC, when the Magi made their presentation to the Roman senate, their evidence that the “Oracles” indicate the birth of a new ruler would have been based on a conjunction happening in “the house of the Romans.” This could not be a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, which was in 66 BC, but rather between Jupiter and another planet or fixed star. Many of these other conjunctions have been suggested as candidates also for the “star of Bethlehem,” because of the widespread interest at that time in all conjunctions of Jupiter particularly by the Romans. There is a great deal of evidence for this widespread belief. Joseph Seiss, a respected Lutheran theologian, and editor of an important journal in the latter nineteenth century has referenced a number of writers that accepted this prophecy.(7) One of his sources was Isaac Abarbanel, a prolific Jewish theologian. (There are several alternate spellings.) He wrote several books concentrating on the messianic writings that are found either in the Bible or the Rabbinical literature. These were valuable resources for the early protestant scholars. In his Commentary on Daniel, he noted that such a conjunction was expected shortly, and that the Messiah was about to appear. Actually, Martin Luther was born the following year. It needs to be noted that although they may be rare, ancient prophecies did exist that are not recorded in the Bible. Anna, mentioned in Luke’s account when Baby Jesus was taken to the temple, was called a prophetess. The statement in Matthew that “the prophets said that Christ should be called a Nazarene” can be traced to no known prophet of Scripture. The Book of Enoch, written years before the flood, but completely lost, is quoted in Jude. It is also quoted by some of the early Christian fathers, who must have had some access to it. It is referenced in one of the Dead-Sea scrolls as also discussing astronomic data. Its prophecies are lost, but are possible sources of some of the legends. The importance to the visitation of the Magi is that they believed this ‘prophecy,’ as did the priests in Egypt at the time of Moses, and the Roman senate, about sixty years before Christ’s birth. MATTHEW 2: 7-8 7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. 8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found [him], bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. WHEN ? The Star was in Virgo, in the constellation Coma. It was heliacal in September. That had been true for many years, and would have no significance to Herod. The Greek word for star can also mean a conjunction of two planets. That was significant. The planetary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn happened in Pisces in 7BC, but in a very rare triple form. Three conjunctions happened within a year in Pisces, in May, October, and December. This must have been highly exciting to the Magi. Then the heliacal rising of “His star” in September would have easily clinched the conclusion that the long awaited Hebrew Messiah was born. There were previous occurrences of the (singular, rather than triple) conjunction known to the Magi, and the most significant feature of each was that Messiah had not appeared. But this one held unusual promise. (to us, it is the only one in the proper Biblical time frame, but that, of course, was not a factor that could have coaxed the Magi to Bethlehem.) The Conjunctions in Pisces in 185BC and 126 predated the daystar. The next was in Feb. 66 BC, a poor or impossible time to see it. (Stars in Pisces were obliterated by daylight between mid January and mid May approximately.) But by then Magi knew that the next one, in 7 BC, would be a triple. Perhaps some of them had come in 66, and found nothing, or on the basis of the political situation at that time, knew it would be futile. So this they expected to be it. The evidence, then, directs a conclusion that the Magi came for the next possible time that His star would be overhead, over His dwelling, at a time of day that to them would be most symbolic according to their understanding. There are two choices, neither can be logically eliminated. They expected to find the new-born King directly under His star on a particular (presently unknown) date that they had calculated that was within two weeks of Easter, when it was overhead at midnight, or near Christmas, when it was overhead at dawn. I like Easter-time, which seems to “fit” better. That is the time of the spring equinox. The first new moon of that season marks the New Year, appointed by God to Moses. Devout Jews marked their age to that day rather than the day of their birth. Two weeks later is the full moon, marking Passover (and now, Easter.) Having made the long journey from Galilee, it is extremely possible that the family may have wanted to stay for Passover, as well. So to summarize on ‘the when’: His star was the only truly unique star in history. It was heliacal in September. This it had been for many years, including 7BC. The conjunctions occurred in May, October and December of 7BC, singling out that specific year. So the Magi came expecting to find the newborn King under that special star at midnight, six months after the heliacal rising, late-March, 6BC. Scripturally, this had to be after Jesus’ presentation at the temple, forty days after his birth. Jesus’ birth was then no later than early February 6BC. How long before? There is some evidence that the family had intended to stay in Bethlehem, so the length of time could even include December 25, 7BC. It had to be a short time, since all the implications of the scriptural narrative are associated with His birth and very early infancy. There is actually no evidence for a Dec. 25 birthday. It was chosen, along with the year of 1 AD, in a series of miscalculations, including one for the solstice which is actually Dec, 22. MATTHEW 2: 9-10 9 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. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. The Star Appeared Again ? That is not the best translation. I propose the following: [Underlines are my alterations.] 9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they had seen in its heliacal rising , was before them, until it was directly above the location of the child . 10 When they had carefully observed the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11 And when they were come into the house, they discovered the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: . . . Lo: This interjection has been interpreted to show that the Magi were surprised. But the Spirit is describing the circumstances with this passage, what actually happened. The men are not being quoted here. The reaction of the men is in the following verse. The interjection is by the Spirit, and means “Behold” or “Please understand.” “Was before them”: This is a navigation account, and is phrased in navigation terms. Regular desert and sea travelers comprised a large portion of the early readers of Matthew’s account. They would have naturally understood these terms in the navigation sense. When using a star for guidance they kept it before them. They would say that it went before them, or that they continued to hold it before them. For the Magi, this was now an extremely delicate observation, so close to vertical, and essentially beyond the ability of their instruments. However the Spirit is telling us here that it was indeed actually before them. “Was directly above the location of the Child”: The word the KJV translates “stood over” is used more than a hundred times, with a wide range of meanings, most commonly being simply “was” or “were.” This is not an account reported by the Magi as to what they experienced. It is the Spirit describing what happened. A skeptic’s declaration that a star cannot be observed to be directly above a very specific location is irrelevant. God knew, and Matthew recorded by inspiration. Now the Magi carefully observed the star. They needed something more accurate than their sextants to observe that it was, as Matthew's revelation attests, “above their location.” Tradition holds that they used the method astronomers had used for at least the previous two centuries, the reflection in a deep well. Paul Maier included a photo of “the Magi’s well” near Bethlehem in his book. (8) That may not be the authentic well, but it has been shown to tourists for centuries. So that tradition is well established, as well as being a most reasonable assumption. The KJV uses the simple translation “when they saw the star.” The Greek word (eido) is used 663 times, and KJV translates it as "see" 314 times and “know” 281. This leaves 68 or over 10% of the usage among other meanings, which include “observe,” “inspect," “examine.” Since it is rare for scripture to describe a scientific inquiry, one would not expect high usage of those particular shades of meaning. They rejoiced As scientists they were certainly anxious as to the success of their deductions that His star would be over Him at six months after being heliacal. 10 When they had carefully observed the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. I have had several first-hand experiences of celebrating a successful scientific proof of a deduction, after a long and arduous time of preparation and observance. These Magi not only confirmed their deductions but also realized that they were about to see their God and Savior, Who had recently descended to earth. So their mirth was exceedingly great. MATTHEW 2: 11-12 11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh . 12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. They saw the young child I suggest a better translation may be achieved by substituting another word for “saw.” This brings out another problem facing a Bible translator. There are several cases where slight variations are found between the several ancient manuscripts that are available. This is one of them. Pious scholars agree that none of the variations cast any doubt on the doctrines of Scripture. In this case, it will alter the emphasis in Scripture between the seeking process of the Magi to find the Christ Child, and the visit they enjoyed with the divine Baby and His mother. By examining the various definitions used in the scriptural usage of each variant word, I find that both could actually be squeezed into the word “discovered.” The manuscript chosen for the KJV translation is named the “Receptus,” although others were also consulted. The word in Receptus is “Eureka” (Found after intense search, or by complete surprise.) But here they departed from Receptus and found other sources that use the Greek “Eidon” (saw, examined, understood, discovered.) They then chose to translate the word as “saw.” I think that is defective. “See” is a proper translation in less than half of the cases where the Spirit used “eidon.” Other Greek words are used to express simply “seeing.” When eidon is used to particularly “see a person,” it is in the context of conferring-with (as we use the word to “see a doctor”) or having an interview. So if eidon is the correct version, I would suggest that the narrative would then be telling us: “On entering the house, they visited the Child and Mary . . .” The narrative, that had first told us that the star had been over the area, and that they had rejoiced over having observed it, now relates that they entered the house. We are not told by what means they selected the proper house, but if the original was eureka , that they entered and, Eureka! (See the Note (9) for more detail) Gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. These are often assumed to have spiritual meanings, representing Christ's atoning sacrifice. But they also had the practical purpose of financing the family’s sojourn in Egypt, as they are the most portable and spendable wealth and currency of that era. We are not told how these members of a pagan society became children of God, but God had certainly brought about their trek and honored it by directly communicating the warning that brought them home safely. MATTHEW 2: 13-23 13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. 16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, 18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping [for] her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. 19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life. 21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: 23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Two years old and under. Literally, “in their second year” and younger. The Jews marked their age to the New Year’s day, the first new moon after the vernal equinox. That would be some time between March 21, and April 18. Now, whether the Magi told Herod that Jesus was born at the first conjunction in May, or the heliacal rising in September, or the final conjunction in December, he would be in his “first year” at all times before the New Year, and in His “second year” thereafter. This is another possible indication that the Magi visit took place after the New Year. Since Herod’s calculation included “and under” which would have included a child born after the New Year. Also, if the New Year were yet to occur, only those born within that same year (who were then in their first year) could have been included in the dates told to Herod by the Magi. Great mourning in Rama, Rachel weeping for her children The connection of Rachel here in Jeremiah’s prophecy can be a bit mystifying. We know this refers to the babes in Bethlehem, because God says so through Matthew's inspired pen. What is Rama? It is a community in suburban Jerusalem, just as is Bethlehem. Here it is obviously used symbolically for “The country around Bethlehem.” Why Rachel? She was the mother of Joseph and Benjamin. So she was the ancestral mother of the tribes of Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh. The ancestral mother of the rest of Israel is Leah, Jacob’s first wife. Rachel died just outside Bethlehem, giving birth to Benjamin. She was buried there, and a famous monument was erected there to her memory. This monument survived for hundreds of years. So Rachel was known at the time Jeremiah wrote, as the symbolic Mother of the children in Bethlehem. APPENDIX So what? I did the research because I find it fun and fascinating. I distribute it because there are others out there who may similarly enjoy it. If you have read this far, you are probably one such. But please don’t fail to see the forest because of these trees. I submitted an early version to a few trusted scholars to make sure I committed no embarrassing ‘false doctrine’ to writing. The Rev. Karl J. Anderson, of my home church, Heritage Lutheran, in Apple Valley, MN, submitted these very-pertinent comments: The details you research are indeed interesting and edifying to the more experienced Bible student. Your attention to detail led me to think about why God did not inspire Luke to provide more detail.... more answers to more of our questions. The first answer to that is simply historical and sociological. Luke doesn't include contemporary historical details or explanations because that knowledge was then current and known by the common man. For example, our questions surrounding Quirinius and his governance of the province of Syria. After 2,000 years these details are misty and muddy to us, but as Luke wrote the Gospel the details were general knowledge. Scholarly study of available and reliable historical resources can help us better understand and appreciate the inspired text. The second part of the answer (Why is there not more detail in the inspired text?) derives from understanding the central, focal point of Scripture. That point, of course, is Christ and his cross. God knows his creatures, he knows our fallen condition and its peculiar impediments, and he deals with us accordingly. For example, God surely could have directed Luke to describe in great detail the exact location of Christ's birth, the exact type of 'stopping place' Mary and Joseph came to in Bethlehem, a complete description of the "stable" (cave, etc.) and so on. God could have directed Luke to precisely establish with irrefutable cross-references to secular, Roman, calendar and time, the exact year, month, day, and hour of Christ's birth. But God did not direct Luke (or anyone else for that matter) to record any of that. Why? Because God knows us. If we knew and preserved the exact spot of Christ's birth we would have turned it into a temple and people would have idolized it. (It is bad enough that the supposed places of Christ's birth are to this day enshrined and worshiped.) Likewise the exact time of Christ's birth. God knew that we would enshrine that day on our calendars and turn it into a form of idolatry. (Again, consider what the world does with the appointed traditional festivals [East and West!] of Christ birth.) In the same way we would like more detail on the Magi, the shepherds, the leading star, etc. Our yearning for details, and our quest to find answers not revealed in Scripture, must not distract us from the central point of the birth narrative of Christ: The Incarnation. This will always be a dilemma for Bible scholars who always want to research and know all that there is to know on a subject. Scholars are not wrong in asking questions or seeking answers inside and outside of Scripture. At the same time, scholars must remember the purpose of Scripture-- and therefore the very purpose of Christian scholarship: "But these (things) are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:31). All Christian scholarship, if it truly is worthy of the name, serves to point people to Christ and salvation. The intended audience must also come into consideration. New believers, converts, and young believers still need the "milk" of the Word and we must be careful not to distract or overload them with detail. On the other hand, mature Christians often find their confidence in the Word bolstered by the results of closer examination of detail and corroborating extra-biblical sources. – Karl J. Anderson (See 2Kings 18:4 for a startling case of people turning a sacred object into an idol. – WMO) NOTES 1 Most people assume that a scientist is “wise” I benefit from that socially, but know first hand it is totally wrong. The use of that term in the KJV reinforces the fact that scientists were among the Magi. 2 During WWII our planes were equipped with a Plexiglas dome, strangely called an astrolabe, through which we could "shoot a star" and determine how many degrees 'before' or 'after' it was. We used a type of sextant (called an 'octant') equipped with a mechanical device for averaging the readings and overcome the effects of a vibrating and gyrating platform. We got amazingly accurate readings. Once on a flight from the Palau Islands to Guam we passed over a tiny atoll named Ulithe. Our navigator had allowed his watch to stop. While I manned the drift-meter, a downward-looking telescope with calibrated reticules, and informed him of the instant we crossed the tip of the atoll, he shot the sun, and set his watch with an error of only twenty seconds. Now the Magi had no lenses in their sextants, but the advantage of their stable position on solid ground certainly compensated for it. Our device averaged several readings, but the ancients often did the same, by employing several observers simultaneously. Again it is a very safe conjecture that the Magi had a sufficient crew to assure accuracy through redundancy. Incidentally, shooting a star is much more accurate than shooting the sun, because the sun is so large that it is hard to locate its center precisely. I believe that having this understanding of the shooting of a star in the navigational sense renders the greatest clarity to the meaning of this passage. 3 If a luminous object were to stop over a house, low enough to be observed without instruments and small enough to have a meaningful position in respect to a house, it would not be honest to call it a star, it would not be one. If it happened today, any observer would call it a UFO. When his skeptical audience suggests he has mistaken a star for the object, he loudly objects, pointing out the vast difference between a star and a small luminous object that could be accurately pinpointed to be over a particular house, or even a particular town, by simply “eye-balling” it. Scripture says star, and I accept that, but do allow a closely associated pair of stars (conjunction,) since this is allowable within the colloquial use of the word. 4 This is published in a paper on the history of the tilt of the earth’s axis where I show that if one recognizes the great flood, it leads to the scientific acceptability of many measurements of the tilt of the axis, some as early as the seventh century BC. These data are widely dismissed as primitive and inaccurate because they differ from modern uniformitarian calculations, that discount the flood. This leads to a blanket false rejection of all ancient data. Details are given in this paper presently available at : http://tccsa.tc/articles/precession.html 5 The stars residing near the sun’s path, the ecliptic, move that two sun-diameters daily, but the distance shortens as their location nears the North Star, which appears essentially stationary. The stars near Polaris just circle it annually. 6 Titus Flavius Josephus: Was a Jewish general who was captured by the Romans, He was enslaved, and tasked to write the history of the Roman-Jewish wars, and of the early Jews. He made a full-fledged capitulation to the Roman cause, and became a citizen of Rome. He is acknowledged as the foremost secular historian of the period. 7 The Gospel in the Stars, Joseph A. Seiss 8 Paul Maier, “In The Fullness of Time” 9 This is nit-picky on my part, but in the KJV the narrative seems to have been translated with an honest attempt to accommodate the translator's understanding that the context required that the very house had been already uniquely indicated by the star. Translating to context is proper and desirable, but I consider his context defective. I do not claim scriptural proof for my context, only scriptural and historical compatibility. I am neither a Greek scholar nor at all educated into the various sources of scriptural manuscripts. My various computer tools are very useful, but are inadequate to decipher subtleties such as this one. My good friend Al Braunwarth, though. has the requisite skills to study this, and he has done that for me. I greatly appreciate his help. He informs me that “eidon” (leading to the translation “saw”) is the more likely correct original version, based on evidence of available sources Because of the tools I have used, my research has been based on Strong's assumption that KJV is translated from Receptus, which is generally true. The 1550 Receptus does use “heurisko” (eureka), but according to Al there is “overwhelming witness for “eidon” in Matthew 2:11,”. Nestle uses “eidon”. So, although I suspect the KJV translators had motive to assume that no further search was needed, they did have legitimate evidence from other sources to use the word "saw." Although for eidon, the use of “visited” seems to have been a more accurate translation. Addenda 4/24/15: Ref Page 12 “the Magi had no lenses in their sextants” – It is now known that many centuries before, instruments incorporated rock-glass lenses. No other possible means is known for constructing the ancient structures so perfectly. Hundreds of these lenses in museums were originally thought to be mere ornaments. It is possible that the Magi still had preserved that art. The Vikings had polarizing lenses used to “see” the sun when navigating on cloudy days. The ancients may have done that as well.

Someone once observed, "The universe is composed of stories, not atoms." The Star of Bethlehem is certainly a story (as is most of the Bible, first and foremost). It is a mystery and a puzzle, involving not only theology and astronomy, but also history and even astrology. It is an attempt of men to understand not the universe at large, but specific events, or "What I Saw." What do we know about the Star of Bethlehem? The popular conception is summarized in the Christmas carol: We three kings of Orient are / Bearing gifts we traverse afar / Field and fountain, moor and mountain / Following yonder star. 0 star of wonder, star of night / Star with royal beauty bright / Westward Leading; still proceeding / Guide us to thy perfect light. We all know those lines as the story of the Star, which is fine - except for the fact that almost everything in it is wrong. The actual New Testament account of the Star of Bethlehem comes from the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew (told here in the Revised English Bible translation): Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judaea during the reign of Herod. After his birth astrologers [Magi] from the east arrived in Jerusalem; asking; "Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We observed the rising of his star, and we have come to pay him homage. " King Herod was greatly perturbed when he heard this and so was the whole of Jerusalem. He called together the chief priests and scribes of the Jews and asked them where the Messiah was to be born. "At Bethlehem in Judaea, " they replied, '.for this is what the prophet wrote 'Bethlehem in the land of Judah, you are by no means Least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you shall come a ruler to be the shepherd of my people Israel '" Then Herod summoned the astrologers to meet him secretly, and ascertained from them the exact time when the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child, and when you have found him, bring me word, so that I may go myself and pay him homage. " After hearing what the king had to say they set out, there before them was the star they had seen rising; and it went ahead of them until it stopped above the place where the child lay They were overjoyed at the sight of it and, entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother and bowed low in homage to him; they opened their treasure chests and Presented gifts to him: gold frankincense, and myrrh. Then they returned to their own country by another route for they had been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod. What is your initial reaction to this story? It seems to me that it is not a fabulous tale. That is it does not conjure up fantastic details or images, and it is told in a rather mundane fashion, not at all like a fable. It is also the only account we have of it in our Bible. Later, various non-canonical sources did elaborate on it. Books like the Protevangelium of James and an epistle of Ignatius say this star was the brightest star in the sky, brighter than all other stars combined, even including the sun and the moon, which bowed down before it. But Matthew is very matter-of-fact. The historical perspective To understand this story, we must view it in the context of its time. Who were these Magi? Where did they come from? Magi is the plural of Magus, the root of our word magic. "Court astrologer" is probably the best translation. "Wise men" is also a good term, descriptive of the esteem in which they were widely held. The group of Magi in question (it is the Christmas carol, not Matthew, that refers to three of them) came "from the east." They might have been Zoroastrians, Medes, Persians, Arabs, or even Jews. They served as court advisors, making forecasts and predictions for their royal patrons based on their study of the stars, about which they were quite knowledgeable. Magi often wandered from court to court, and it was not unusual for them to cover great distances in order to attend the birth or crowning of a king, paying their respects and offering gifts. It is not surprising, therefore, that Matthew would mention them as validation of Jesus' kingship, or that Herod would regard their arrival as a very serious matter. When might these Magi have appeared in Judaea? Obviously, determining the story's date is important if we are to look for astronomical connections. We might assume that it was around I B.C. or I A.D., since that is when, by conventional reckoning, Jesus was born. But the calendar on which these dates are based was set by the Roman monk Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525 A D., long after the fact. Scholars writing in the first and second centuries A.D. asserted that Jesus was born between what we now call 4 B.C. and 1 B.C. They were living much closer to the event and had access to thousands of historical records in many excellent libraries, and their opinions probably should be given much more weight than has been common. How about the time of the year? The best clue is a passage in the Book of Luke: "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the fields keeping watch over their flock by night " If the reference to "fields" is accurate - not pastures or holding pens - we might guess at a date in late summer or early fall, for it was customary for farmers to allow sheep and cattle to graze the stubble in the fields following the harvest. This clue is suggestive, but hardly definitive. One difficulty in seeking a precise date is the fact that Matthew reports two separate sightings, possibly separated by a substantial time. First, the Magi saw the Star rising en anatole, best translated as "rising in the east," the ancient technical term for an acronical rising, when an object rises at sunset and is visible all night. After they come to Jerusalem - we do not know how long that took, and there is no indication that the Star was in any way involved with the journey- they see the Star again as they travel the few miles to Bethlehem: There before them was the star they had seen rising; and it went ahead of them until it stopped above the place where the child lay. There was no need for a bright or supernatural guiding light to find Bethlehem from Jerusalem; it lies just five miles south on the main road. There is a reference not to the house of an infant (brephos in the Greek) but of a paidion, or toddler, indicating that some months may have elapsed since the birth itself . What are the astronomical possibilities? This question has been asked many times since the Christian apologist Origen first raised it around 250 A.D. It is safe to say that every astronomical event known to have occurred during, say, the decade of interest has at some point been proposed as the Star of Bethlehem. The key point to answering this question is to note that it is not just any astronomical event that is of interest. We can restrict our inquiry to those appearances that would have had astrological significance to the Magi, who declared: "We observed the rising of his star, and we have come to "pay him homage." An astronomical event may not have been very obvious at all; certainly it was not obvious to Herod. Had it been an incomparably bright object, as later writers thought, there would be numerous written records of it. It is much more plausible that the Star of Bethlehem went unnoticed by all but a few experts such as the Magi. The Death of Herod A major key to the chronology is the date of the death of Herod, who figures prominently in our story. Herod was alive when the Star of Bethlehem appeared and the commonly quoted date for his death is 4 B.C. Thus dates of 7 B.C. through 4 B.C. are often given for the birth of Jesus. The political events of this period are best known from the writings of Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian who lived from 37 A.D. to about 95 A.D. His testimony has always been considered vital in determining these dates. According to Josephus, on the night of a lunar eclipse Herod executed two rabbis. They were accused of inciting some young men to climb up on the wall and tear down the golden eagle that the king had ordered placed on the gate to the Temple in Jerusalem. This eagle was, of course, an abomination to the Jews because it was a graven image. Soon Herod himself died and was buried. One of his sons inherited his throne, shortly after which Passover was celebrated. It was long believed that the lunar eclipse in question occurred on March 13 in 4 B.C. But this was only a partial eclipse (40 percent total) and fairly hard to detect. And it occurred only 29 days before Passover. Based on what we know of Herod's life, here is what would have had to happen in those 29 days: Herod was sick at the time of the execution of the rabbis and his condition worsened almost immediately. He was treated for a time by his physicians, to no avail. Herod then decided to pack up the royal household and move to Jericho to take the baths. He tried the baths unsuccessfully for some days and then returned to Jerusalem. Believing that he soon would die, Herod came up with a diabolical plan to insure that all of Israel would mourn his death, in spite of his unpopularity. He commanded the leading men from around the country to come to Jerusalem; there he imprisoned them in the Hippodrome and ordered the army to execute them as soon as he was dead. Israel would indeed mourn. (Fortunately, the order was not carried out.) In the meantime, word arrived from Rome that Herod had the Emperor's permission to execute his rebellious son Antipater, and he promptly complied. Five days later he died, but not before decreeing that his was to be the largest funeral ever held in the history of the world. His body was embalmed. The army was assembled to carry his body in the funeral procession to a burial site some 25 miles away. The soldiers walked in bare feet, as was required when in mourning, traveling one mile a day. A legate from Rome, where word of Herod's death had been received, arrived to protect the royal treasury. Finally, Herod's son Archelaus was crowned king and had time to issue a few decrees prior to the celebration of Passover. The 29 days between the eclipse of 4 B.C. and the following Passover simply do not allow enough time for all of this to have happened. A minimum of 10 weeks would have been required. But on January 10, 1 B.C., there was a total lunar eclipse visible in Palestine, and it occurred twelve-and-a-half-weeks before Passover. As Martin points out, there are other compelling reasons to regard I B.C. as the true date of Herod's death. For example, the War of Varus, known to have followed Herod's death, can be redated to I B.C., where it fits the other known facts perfectly. If we conclude that Herod did die in the spring of 1 B.C., we are free to add the years 3 B.C. and 2 B.C. to our search for the Star of Bethlehem. What was happening then? The year 2 B.C. marked the 25th anniversary of Caesar Augustus's rule and the 750th anniversary of the founding of Rome. Huge celebrations were planned. The whole empire was at peace. The doors of the temple of Janus were closed for only the third time in Roman history. To honor their emperor, the people were to rise as one and name Augustus pater patriae, or "Father of the Country." Now, getting the people of an empire to do something "spontaneously" requires a great deal of organization. And so an enrollment, or census, was ordered. In those days, a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled .... And all went to be enrolled, each to his own city. This enrollment, described in the Gospel of Luke, which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, always has been a mystery since no regular taxation census occurred at this time. But the pater patriae enrollment fits perfectly. The Astronomical Perspective What astronomical events, possibly in the years 3 or 2 B.C., might have been related to the Star of Bethlehem? Novae have been suggested, the unexpected, sudden brightening of a star from invisibility into a bright object for a period of days or weeks. There is no historical record of such a nova, nor is it clear what a nova's astrological significance would be. Comets are candidates, for they appear sporadically, move, and even seem to point down to the earth. (This was Origen's choice.) But the recorded comets around this time, even Halley's Comet in 12 B.C., were very impressive; astrologically, they were considered ominous. Meteors and fireballs are even less likely candidates. Conjunctions of planets have long been considered good possibilities. A conjunction is a close apparent approach between two celestial objects. Technically speaking, a conjunction occurs at the moment when both objects have the same celestial longitude; one is due north of the other. The closer the objects, the more visually impressive is the event and the more significant astrologically. In 3 B.C. and 2 B.C., there was a series of close conjunctions involving Jupiter, the planet that represented kingship, coronations, and the birth of kings. In Hebrew, Jupiter was known as Sedeq or "Righteousness," a term also used for the Messiah. In September of 3 B.C., Jupiter came into conjunction with Regulus, the star of kingship, the brightest star in die constellation of Leo. Leo was the constellation of kings, and it was associated with the lion of Judah. The royal planet approached the royal star in the royal constellation representing Israel. Just a month earlier Jupiter and Venus, the Mother planet, had almost seemed to touch each other in another dose conjunction, also in Leo. Then the conjunction between Jupiter and Regulus was repeated, not once but twice, in February and May of 2 B.C. Finally, in June of 2 B.C., Jupiter and Venus, the two brightest objects in the sky save the sun and the moon. experienced an even closer encounter when their discs appeared to touch; to the naked eye they became a single object above the setting sun. This exceptionally rare spectacle could not have been missed by the Magi. In fact, we have seen here only the highlights of an impressive series of planetary motions and conjunctions fraught with a variety of astrological meanings, involving all the other known planets of the period, Mercury, Mars, and Saturn. The astrological significance of these impressive events must surely have been seen by the Magi as the announcement of the impending birth of a great king of Israel. September 11, 3 B.C., is perhaps the most interesting date of all. Not only was Jupiter very dose to Regulus in the first of their conjunctions, but the sun was in the constellation of Virgo (of obvious symbolism), together with the new moon, in a configuration that fits a plausible interpretation of a passage in the Book of Revelation describing the birth of a male child who is to be the ruler of the universe. Significantly, September 11, 3 B.C., also marked the beginning of the Jewish New year, traditionally regarded as the anniversary of Noah's landing after the Great Flood. But if the planet Jupiter was the Star of Bethlehem, or was a component of the events that triggered the visit by the Magi, how do we view the final appearance of the Star on their journey to Bethlehem? It would have been in the southern sky, though fairly high above the horizon. Could it have stopped over Bethlehem? The answer is yes. The word "stop" was used for what we now call a planet's "stationary point." A planet normally moves eastward through the stars from night to night and month to month, but regularly exhibits a "retrograde loop." As it approaches the opposite point in the sky from he sun, it appears to slow, come to a full stop, and move backward (westward) through the sky for some weeks. Again it slows, stops, and resumes its eastward course. It seems plausible that the Magi were "overjoyed" at again seeing before them, as they traveled southward, His star, Jupiter, which at its stationary point was standing still over Bethlehem. We do know for certain that Jupiter performed a retrograde loop in 2 B.C. and that it was stationary on December 25, interestingly enough, during Hanukkah, the season for giving presents. What Room for God? Where has this search for the Star of Bethlehem taken us? What meaning, what room for God, do we find in the events that we know to have occurred? If we have correctly identified the Star of Bethlehem, the science is clear and simple. Keplerian orbits of planets are predictable, so that we can deduce quite accurately what the sky looked like 2,000 years ago. Even the ancient Magi understood apparent planetary motions quite well. Predictions of the conjunctions of 3 and 2 B.C. were made 400 years prior to the birth of Christ, and they were in error by only a few days. There is no need to invoke God or divine miracles to explain what happened in the heavens above Judaea. Natural laws are sufficient. But is this kind of sufficiency really enough for us? The significant question raised here is not what happened, but why it happened. What does it mean? Was Matthew right in seeing this event as divine confirmation of a central moment in God's plan for mankind? What room is left for God, not as an agent filling in the gaps between what we can understand as physical causes, but as the creator of purpose? And was God's purpose fulfilled by the great celestial dance that we call the Star of Bethlehem? These questions are examples of the kind of decisions we are faced with daily. No theologian can say, in a way convincing to a scientist, that some event required an act of God outside natural law. Similarly, no scientist can say that some event was merely (a dangerous word) an act of natural law working itself out with no other meaning. That is, no one is forced to believe that what happened in the heavens two thousand years ago was a simple, natural event devoid of meaning. The Star of Bethlehem is an excellent example of an event that occurs right at the intersection of Christianity and science, in a world created by a God who chose to institute natural laws but who nevertheless continues to carry out His own purposes. Craig Chester is the president and co-founder of the Monterey (California) Institute for Research in Astronomy (MIRA). He holds a Ph.D in Astronomy from Case Western Reserve University [Reprinted from IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of Hillsdale College, December 1993] Minnesota Christian Chronicle Dec.23,1993

The Star of Bethlehem is one of the most powerful, and enigmatic, symbols of Christianity. Second perhaps only to the Cross of the Crucifixion, the importance of its role in the story of the Nativity of the Christ child is almost on a par with the birth itself. However, the true origin of the Star of Bethlehem has baffled astronomers, historians, and theologians for the past two millennia. For the purposes of this discussion we shall consider four possibilities: That the star was a "one-shot" occurrence - never before seen and has not been seen since; it was placed in the sky by God to announce the birth of His Son; That the Star was added to the story of the Nativity after the fact; That the Star was a real, documentable astronomical object; That the entire New Testament is fake. If you subscribe to the first theory, then we, as astronomers, have nothing to talk about. It was a supernatural miracle that defies scientific explanation. However, many theologians insist on putting some sort of divine interpretation on Matthew's writings. By admitting that the Star was a natural phenomenon, with an actual scientific explanation, is tantamount to totally removing its heavy symbolic significance. After all, how could something so miraculous have such a mundane explanation? There is a certain amount of credence to the second theory. At the time of Jesus' birth, very few people recognized its significance. The only time the Star is mentioned at all is in the Book of Matthew. It is not mentioned in any of the other Gospel accounts of the Nativity. Matthew, writing some time after Jesus was crucified, may have added the star to the account, because all great kings at that time had stars associated with their nativity. Jesus' significance did not become apparent until after he began his ministry, at the approximate age of 30, the age at which Jews reach spiritual maturity. As bizarre as the fourth theory may seem at first glance, there is a certain amount of credence to it, also. This theory holds that the entire New Testament was written by members of the Roman ruling family, for the specific purpose of splitting the Jewish people as a political and religious entity. Rome had just fought a third war with the Jews that began in about 60 AD, and although they won the war, they knew full well that Rome could not survive another war with them, unless they could be defeated from within, using a "divide and conquer" strategy. The character of Jesus was said to have been modeled after one Arrius Piso, who is said to have written, among other Books of the New Testament, the Book of Matthew. The rest of the New Testament was written by other members of the Piso family, one of the ruling families of Rome. Although the strategy itself is sound, the evidence to support it is largely circumstantial, and most historians and theologians do not give it much credence. For our purposes, however, we shall subscribe to the third theory - that the Star of Bethlehem was a genuine astronomical occurrence. As significant as the Star of Bethlehem is to the mysticism of the Nativity, it is only mentioned once in the Bible, and that is in the Book of Matthew. Luke, whose account of the nativity is far more detailed than that of Matthew, doesn't mention the Star, or the Magi, or wise men, who came from the east, drawn by the Star. He also makes no mention of a fearful Herod, slaughtering all male children in Bethlehem aged two and under, and the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt as a result. Matthew, on the other hand, makes no mention of a trip to Joseph's ancestral home, Bethlehem or the decree from Caesar Augustus that brought them there. He also doesn't mention a crowded inn, a manger, or angels appearing to the shepherds in the fields. Yet the best information we have regarding the Nativity comes from Matthew and Luke. The Gospel according to Matthew was written between the years 50 - 70 AD; Luke wrote his Gospel between 58 -70 AD. Both agree that Jesus was born, in Bethlehem, during the last years of the reign of Herod the Great, that the birth was announced by a heavenly messenger, and that his actual home town was Nazareth. The discrepancies in their two accounts are not surprising, when one takes into account the fact that they wrote in an age of oral history and myth, and without the standards of science, history, or journalism that we take for granted today. In fact, it could be said that those standards as regarding certain forms of modern media have not advanced at all. That two people, neither of whom were eyewitnesses, have different recollections of a story that was told to them verbally, should not surprise us in the least; this same thing happens today only too often. It is generally accepted by most scholars that Christ was born sometime between 7BC and 1 BC. There are a number of historical markers that allow us to pin the date down to this time period. There were also some incredibly spectacular astronomical events that occurred during this period as well. Let us first look at the historical background. During this period, the Roman Empire was enjoying a time of unparalleled peace and prosperity. Augustus Caesar, the Roman emperor, had begun to recall many of his troops in outlying provinces starting in 7 BC and release them from duty. In the year 2 BC Rome celebrated its 750th year since it was founded, as determined by the records of the Roman priests - the Romans at that time determined that Rome was built in the year 753 BC. This also coincided with the 25th jubilee year of the reign of Caesar Augustus as Emperor of the Romans. In August of 2 BC there were great festivals in Rome and throughout the provinces and kingdoms allied with Rome. People came to the festivities from all over the Empire and beyond. Also, in 2 BC, Augustus finally dedicated, after many delays, the new Forum bearing his name. But possibly the most significant event that occurred in 2 BC was that Augustus was given his most prestigious title, the highest honor that could be bestowed on any Roman - that of "Pater Patriae", or "Father of the Country". A decree went out from Augustus that required "the entire Roman people" to register their approval of Augustus receiving this title, before it could be bestowed upon him. This oath took place in the late summer and early fall of 3 BC and was required of all Roman citizens and others of distinguished rank among the client kingdoms associated with Rome. By the year 2 BC, Augustus was seen by the Romans as the "Prince of Peace." This universal census of allegiance to Augustus was demanded of those who claimed any kind of authority within the Empire. It was also required of any person, most notably the Jewish communities, who could trace their ancestry back to the great Jewish royal families. Jesus' parents, Mary and Joseph, both being descendants of King David, fell into this category. They, among others, were required to swear an oath that neither they, nor any of their offspring would usurp the throne. It was Jewish custom that, during such a census, each travel to the city of their ancestry. In the case of Mary and Joseph, this city was the city of David - Bethlehem. It was also customary for provincial Romans to periodically have their citizenships affirmed and imperial privileges renewed . The normal thing for Roman provincials was to do this in their native city. However, Romans in outlying provinces of Asia Minor were not always able to do this, so a number of "archive cities" were established throughout Asia Minor where Roman imperial records were deposited. Roman provincials in Asia Minor could then prove their citizenship by reference to these records. If the oath to Caesar Augustus required Roman provincials to travel to these cities, then Luke's statement that "everyone went into his own city" (Luke 2:3) might apply to Roman provincials as well as non-Romans. Romans were evidently required to renew these privileges every five years. Furthermore, there were official censuses held every 20 years for taxation purposes. The last such census had occurred in 8 BC, making 3 BC exactly five years from the previous Roman census. At this time, Herod the Great was king of Judaea. He was appointed King by Augustus; he did not inherit the title. Herod was not even a Jew; he was Idumaenean by birth, and a commoner at that, and yet, as King of Judaea, was the ruler of a large segment of the Jewish population. This made him immensely unpopular among the Jewish people. Furthermore, his father, Antipater, Rome's representative in Judaea, had paved the way for the overthrow of the Hasmoneans, the Jewish royal family in power who were very popular. This didn't go over too well, either. To appease the Jews, Herod took, as his second wife, Mariamne, a member of the Hasmonean family. This had little effect; Herod was universally despised by the Jews, and he knew it. This, among other things, made him paranoid and delusional. During his reign, his eldest son by his first wife, Antipater, convinced Herod that the two young royal sons, born to Mariamne, were plotting against their father. Herod immediately had them executed. Later, he had Mariamne and her mother executed as well. These executions infuriated the Jewish people. Ironically, just before his death, Herod had Antipater himself executed - for allegedly attempting to assassinate his father by poisoning him, and then attempting a military coup. Now let's take a look at the astronomical events that corresponded to this period in history. There were probably as many or more people, percentage-wise, interested in astronomical occurrences and their interpretations at this period of history than at any other time in western civilization. Astrological matters at this time in history were believed by most people to be reliable scientific indicators of present and future events, especially those involving rulers of the various countries. The notable exception to this were the Jews. To them, Gentile forms of astrology were blasphemy; they did not believe that the stars should be used to predict the future. However, they did believe that the stars were signs of God's works; there are several indications in the Old Testament, starting with Genesis 1:14, that God placed the stars in the sky as signs, to make known His wishes and actions. During this period of history, there was no clear distinction between astronomy and astrology. The motions of the stars and planets were charted, and this information used to determine the events of history, and the fate of people's lives, most notably that of royal families. Of the various groups of priests and astrologers/astronomers of this period, the group that garnered the most respect were the Magi. The word "Magi" is plural for "magus", which is the root of the word "magic" in the English language. The mysticism surrounding the Magi and their profession would possibly have been seen as magic by the people of the time; many of the races that inhabited what was then considered to be the civilized world, including the Jews, were very superstitious by nature. The origins of the Magi are not entirely clear, but they are believed to have had their beginnings with the teachings of Zoroaster, sometime around 1000 BC. Zoroaster was a religious leader and teacher in the region of Persia where the Magi were thought to have their origins. Zoroaster espoused monotheism, and taught that at sometime in the future, there would arise a king who would raise the dead and transform the world into a kingdom of peace and security. Interestingly enough, the Zoroastrian traditions associated with this prophesied king said that the king would come forth from the descendants of Abraham. The Magi were not simple astrologers; they were professional astronomers as well. Over the centuries they became important members of royal courts, often serving as emissaries to the kings by whom they were employed. The secrets of their teachings were reserved for other members of their profession and royalty. The Magi, particularly those from the eastern parts of what was then considered to be the civilized world, were held in high esteem. In 7 BC there was a triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. All three meetings of the two planets occurred in the constellation Pisces, long associated with the Hebrew nation, a phenomenon that occurs only once every approximately 900 years. The first conjunction occurred in late May, the second in September, and the third in early December. Although the two planets never came closer together than about two diameters of the moon, and therefore could hardly have been seen as a single star, these events would have had great significance to the trained astronomers of the time. Jupiter was known as the "planet of Kings" and Saturn as the "Protector of the Jews". This could easily have been interpreted as a sign that the Jewish Messiah had been, or was about to be, born. In February of 6 BC a massing of three planets occurred, again in the constellation Pisces, when Jupiter, Mars and Saturn came within 8 degrees of each other. This event occurs only once every 800 years, approximately, and again, would have had great significance to the astronomers of the time. Both of these rare events would have been predicted by the ancient astronomers. Chinese astronomers recorded a nova in the constellation Capricorn that was visible during March-April of 5 BC. It was visible for over 70 days. But Matthew indicates that the star moved from the eastern sky to the south. A nova in Capricorn, some 40 degrees off the ecliptic, would not have moved much at all, with respect to Earth; it would have remained in the same place with respect to the celestial background. Chinese astronomers also recorded two comets - one in 5 BC and one in 4 BC. The comet of 5 BC had an observable tail; the comet the following year did not. Although the Chinese thought of comets as "broom stars" - sweeping away the old and bringing in the new, and thus, looked upon them with favor, many astronomers, as well as the general populace, in Persia and the Roman empire did not share this view. Comets were felt to be harbingers of disaster; it is therefore highly unlikely that a comet could have been the star that announced the birth of the Jewish Messiah, or that inspired the Magi to make the long journey to Bethlehem. Furthermore, Matthew's account clearly described a star; it is highly unlikely that he would have mistaken a comet for a star. However, these astronomical events, exciting as they were, pale by comparison to the events of an 18 month period during 3-2 BC. This was one of the most remarkable periods in terms of celestial events in the last 3000 years. These celestial events no doubt inspired many wonderful and mystical interpretations, by the priests and religious peoples of those times. And coincidentally, they occurred when the entire Roman empire was in celebration. It was as though the heavens were confirming the greatness of the sovereignty of the Roman Empire in general, and Caesar Augustus in particular. On May 19, 3 BC, the planets Saturn and Mercury were in close conjunction - within 40' (minutes of arc) of each other. Then Saturn moved eastward through the stars to meet with Venus on June 12, 3BC. During this conjunction the two were only 7.2' apart. And if this weren't enough, on August 12, 3 BC, Jupiter and Venus came into close conjunction just before sunrise, coming within 4.2' from each other as viewed from earth, and appearing as a very bright morning star. This conjunction took place in the constellation Cancer, the "end" sign of the Zodiac. Ten months later, on June 17 2BC, Venus and Jupiter joined again, this time in the constellation Leo. The two planets were at best 6" (arc seconds) apart; some calculations indicate that they actually overlapped each other. This conjunction occurred during the evening and would have appeared as one very bright star. Even if they were 6" apart, it would have required the sharpest of eyes to split the two, because of their brightness. The constellation Leo was not only considered the "head" or "chief" sign of the Zodiac, it was thought to be ruled by the sun, the "chief" star of the heavens. It was considered the "Royal Constellation", dominated by the star Regulus. The name Regulus itself is derived from the Latin word for king; it was considered the "King Star". Leo was also considered the beginning zodiacal sign for the astrological year and was thought to denote royalty and power for any of the planets found within it. Jupiter was regarded by the Roman people to be the guardian and ruler of the Roman Empire and it was thought to have the power to determine the course of all human affairs. Venus, now in conjunction with Jupiter, was believed to be the mother of the family of Augustus. So here were the two planets dedicated to the origins of Rome and the sovereignty of Augustus merging together in a "marriage" during one of the most glorious years in the history of Rome, and in the constellation of Leo, at that. That this conjunction also occurred during a full moon was also important to the Romans. Full moon day was especially sacred to Jupiter, and the day itself was called "the Trust of Jupiter". It was celebrated as a time when faith and trust were supposed to be given to the guardian and ruler of the Empire of Rome, whether human or divine (and in the case of Augustus, there was little distinction). Another rare astronomical event occurred 72 days after the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus, on August 27, 2 BC. This was a close grouping, or massing, of the planets Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury. It also occurred in the constellation Leo, and during the month of August when most of the Roman festivities for that unusual year were taking place. This was seen by astrologers as "common agreement of purpose". It probably also signaled a new and powerful beginning for Rome and the rest of the known civilized world. Just 33 days after the Jupiter/Venus "morning star" conjunction, on August 12, 3 BC, Jupiter came to within 19.8' of Regulus. Regulus, the chief star in Leo, lay practically in the path of the Sun, and was therefore afforded the additional epithet of "Royal Star". Here was the King planet now coming into contact with the "King Star". AND in the Royal Constellation. If viewed in isolation to other astronomical occurrences this single event might not have been significant to astrologers, but combined with the other celestial displays of 3 to 2 BC, it soon took on increased symbolic meaning. This is because the first conjunction began a series of three meetings of Jupiter and Regulus that occurred in a precise sequential pattern. Jupiter first united with Regulus and then continued on its normal journey through the heavens. On December 1, 3 BC, Jupiter stopped its motion through the fixed stars and began its annual "retrograde" motion. In doing so, it once again headed toward Regulus. Then on February 17, 2 BC, the two were reunited, 51' apart. Jupiter continued its retrograde motion another 40 days and then it reverted to its normal motion through the stars. Remarkably, this movement once again placed Jupiter into a third conjunction with Regulus on May 8, 2 BC. They were then 43.2' apart. To astrologers, it appeared as though the King Planet was circling over and around Regulus, the King Star, "homing in" on it and pointing out the significance of the King Star as it related to the King Planet. This circular movement of Jupiter over Regulus would, in all probability, have signaled that a great king was then destined to appear. This circling motion also provided another significant astrological observation. The zero line for beginning and ending the 360 degrees of the Zodiac was determined by some astrologers as existing between Cancer and Leo. This means that this motion effect of Jupiter circling around Regulus was happening in the heavens just east of the zero degree line for astrological measurements. It occurred at the beginning section of the astrological Zodiac in the view of some Gentile astrologers. This interpretation is similar to that designed by Moses; the Biblical Zodiac designed by Moses also began with the royal sign of Leo, but its zero degree line was located in the middle of the constellation, not at its beginning. Whatever the case, these indications would unquestionably have shown the people of that era that a great king or ruler was then being introduced, to the people of the world. And who was the greatest ruler then in existence? Caesar Augustus. These celestial events coincided with the 25th year of Augustus' elevation to supreme power over the Romans, the 750th priestly anniversary of the founding of Rome, and the exact year the people and Senate of Rome bestowed upon Augustus his supreme title of Pater Patriae. To those in Rome, it seemed as though heaven itself was giving approval for the emperorship of Augustus and that the government of Rome had the divine right to world sovereignty. Hardly a person in Rome would have disputed this interpretation and most people would have agreed that the astronomical evidence in support of this interpretation was overwhelming. In other parts of the world, however, these astonishing celestial events were interpreted in a different way. For example, the Magi from the eastern world were also watching these celestial phenomena denoting the advent of royalty. These Magi decided to skip Rome and its festivities; instead they headed toward Jerusalem, and Judaea, looking for this special child whom they considered to be the important newborn "King of the Jews". Some scholars assert that the Star was only visible to the Magi; this is misleading, if not totally false. The stars and planets were there for all to see; but it took the training of the Magi to understand the significance of their positions. And as I've already stated, theirs was not the only interpretation of the celestial pageantry of 3-2 BC. What brought the Magi to Judaea? A prophesy made by Daniel, writing between 605 and 530 BC, which stated that Jerusalem would be rebuilt after the Babylonians destroyed it in the 6th century BC, and that 490 years would pass from a command to rebuild Jerusalem until a world-embracing messianic kingdom would emerge on the earth in the region of Palestine. Although vague references to a Jewish Messiah had been made by earlier prophets, Daniel was the first to specifically predict the birth of this Messiah. However, Daniel's prophecy had some pretty vague factors associated with it. For instance, Daniel did not clearly explain which command to rebuild Jerusalem was meant. He also did not say whether his year-lengths were lunar or solar. As regards the Messiah, Daniel did not indicate at what point in the life of the Messiah the 490 years began their countdown. Thus, the prophecy does not provide, with pinpoint accuracy, when the Messiah would make His presence known. Significant events in a Jewish male's life could include his bar mitzvah, when he achieved 20 years of age and thus able to go to war, or when he became thirty, the year of spiritual adulthood. The 490 year period could also have begun whenever the Messiah would be proclaimed King, which could happen at any time during his life. Because Daniel did not detail these points, the prophecy was vague to Jews and others at the time. It was subject to a variety of questions, not to mention interpretations. Most Jews, however, were certain enough about the prophecy to believe that it would occur somewhere near the first century. Flavius Josephus, born Joseph ben Matthias, the Jewish historian who lived in the last part of the first century, mentioned a conviction among the Jews that this prophecy of Daniel would have its fulfillment within the first century. Josephus further stated that it was shown in the "sacred writings" that about that time one from their country (Judaea) should become governor of the habitable earth. Daniel was a Jewish slave, who as a young boy, was captured by Babylonian soldiers and taken to Babylon, where he served the Babylonian kings. He became a Master Magi, in a sense, and was highly prized by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, because of his uncanny ability to accurately interpret dreams and predict historical events based on these dreams. His reputation was known throughout the then western civilized world. The Magi were well aware of Daniel's prophecies, since he was one of them. Furthermore the constellation Leo the Lion had great significance to the Jewish people. It was referred to as the Lion of Judah, after the tribe of Judah. To the Magi, the astronomical events fit the prophecy concerning the birth of a great king born of the Jews far more closely than they did the sovereignty of the Roman Empire and Augustus. Even the Romans were aware of the prophecies of Daniel. Roman historians in the early second century wrote of the firm belief that had long prevailed through the east that it was destined for the empire of the world at that time to be given to someone who would come forth from Judaea. Even the Roman emperor Nero was advised to move his seat of empire from Rome to Jerusalem, because that city was then destined to become the capital of the world. Nero, of course, declined. However, in 2 BC, the Romans already had the fulfillment of the prophecy staring at them in the face, in the form of Caesar Augustus. They didn't feel the need to look elsewhere for interpretations. All these widespread beliefs were based on the prophecies of Daniel. Since Jewish people lived in all areas of the Roman and Parthian worlds, their national aspirations would have been well known. These early prophetic convictions of the Jews, Romans, and Magi, were important to those who lived in the first century BC. And the use of astrological interpretations in evaluating the historical events of the time were at an all time high. So, when the Magi, who were professional astrologers, saw what they considered to be the "Star" of a Jewish king, it was a certain sign to them to go to Jerusalem with gifts to present to that newborn king. Most Jews admired the Magi of the east. This was not only because of their former association with the prophet Daniel, but also because they were not idolaters. Though the Magi believed that the power of the deity was manifested in the natural elements of fire, water, air and earth, these Gentile priests did not set up material images in recognition of him. So when the Magi arrived in Jerusalem and made their presence known, Herod was justifiably alarmed. His own court astrologers had no doubt given Herod their own interpretation of the celestial events of the previous months, but Herod, knowing full well the reputation of the Magi, and the esteem in which they were held by the Jews, decided that he needed more information. Furthermore, to refuse an audience with these Magi, who represented eastern royalty, would have been decidedly politically incorrect, not to mention extremely bad manners. The Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court of the Jews, was evidently also anxious to hear what the Magi had to say. How many Magi, or their point of origin, is unclear. But one thing is certain; they traveled with a great deal of pomp and circumstance. Furthermore, persons of their stature would not have traveled by camel; they would have made the journey on horseback. So with all due respect to Hallmark - the three kings on camels depicted on most Christmas cards has no basis in fact. The legend of the "three kings" arose, no doubt, because of the three different gifts presented to the newborn king; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Three gifts, three kings; the explanation is probably as simple as that. Why, if the Magi were well aware of the prophecy concerning the birth of the King of the Jews, did they stop at Jerusalem and ask Herod for directions? For one thing, as emissaries of royalty, they were bound, by their own code, to pay their respects to royalty in cities they passed through. Also, although they knew that the child was to be born in Judaea, in the city of David, they evidently did not know exactly where Bethlehem was. Bethlehem was about 6 miles south of Jerusalem; once the Magi obtained this information, they were on their way, bearing gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh, the traditional gifts for newborn royalty. When the Magi arrived in Bethlehem, Jesus was not an infant; he was a toddler. Mary and Joseph were by this time living in a house, not a stable. Matthew, in Chapter 2, Verse 11 of his Gospel states: "And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh." Depending on their point of origin, the journey would have taken them anywhere from two to four months or more, with a stopover in Jerusalem. This would have put their arrival in Bethlehem somewhere between early September and late December of 2 BC. Furthermore, they may not have all started from the same place; they could have stopped along the way and picked up, or consulted with, more of their colleagues. Several places have been proposed for their point of origin, including Babylon, Persia, or Sheba, in Arabia. Although there is some reference in the Old Testament of the Magi coming from Arabia, this is by no means certain and it is highly possible that they did not all come from the same country. There are also historical references to an incident that occurred in 614 AD, when Persian armies invaded the Holy Land, destroying Christian churches. However, when they came to the Basilica in Bethlehem they refused to destroy it because of a mosaic depicting the adoration of the Magi. It turns out they recognized them because of their dress; they were fellow Persians. Through the years there has been some misunderstanding about the star due to a mistranslation of Matthew in the King James version of the Bible. The King James version has the Magi saying "we have seen his star in the east". A more accurate translation is "we have seen his star at its rising". Most of their daily observations took place in the early morning hours, during which they would have seen the Jupiter/Venus conjunction of August, 3 BC. They then searched for further signs, and found them, in the triple conjunction of Jupiter with Regulus. Then, on June 17, 2 BC, Jupiter again joined with Venus, this time in the early evening. This conjunction, in all probability, was what brought the Magi to Jerusalem. The Magi, observing this conjunction from Mesopotamia, would have seen this conjunction on the western horizon, precisely in the direction of Judaea. But the conjunction would have only been visible for a short time, before setting in the western horizon. Yet Matthew's account of the star has the Magi following it westward, until it stopped at the place where the child was born. Now let's take another look at the astronomical events of the 18 month period in 3-2 BC again. What is the one thing they all have in common, with the exception of the Saturn/Mercury conjunction? The planet Jupiter. After leaving its massing with Mars, Saturn, and Venus on August 27, 2 BC Jupiter continued its apparent motion westward each morning, as viewed by the Magi at their regular pre-dawn observations. This westward motion would have led them to Jerusalem. Jupiter then, due to retrograde motion, appeared to "stop" in the sky, as viewed from Jerusalem, directly to the south, over Bethlehem. It came to its normal stationary position at dawn on December 25th, 2 BC. Not only that, but the planet came to a stop in the constellation Virgo. It remained there for nearly six days. Furthermore, being near the Winter Solstice, the sun was also "standing still". So when was Christ born? We know from Biblical references that Christ was born six months after his cousin John the Baptist. Again from Biblical references we can pin down the date of John's birth. John's father, Zachariah, was in the temple performing his priestly duties when an angel visited him in a vision and informed him that his wife Elizabeth, who was barren and on in years, would soon conceive a son. We know from Luke that Zachariah was responsible for the eighth of the 24 Priestly Courses of the Jewish Faith. Each of the 24 courses lasted a week and were repeated twice during the year. The Jews used a luni-solar calendar of 51 weeks - the other three weeks of the year were for the three major Jewish religious celebrations - Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Because the calendar only had 51 weeks, the Jews had to add 30 days at prescribed intervals so that the calendar kept pace with the solar year. In the case of Zachariah, he was officiating in the 8th course, or 8th week of the Jewish year, when the angel paid him a visit. The priestly courses probably started their serving in the springtime month of Nisan - the first month of the Jewish ecclesiastical year. This is a chronological clue - it tells us the general time of year that Zachariah was serving. We also know that he was not serving at a festival period because the priests suspended their normal weekly duties and all served together during the major Jewish high holy seasons. Assuming that the springtime month of Nisan began that year (it varied with the state of the crops - in 4 BC it began after midnight on March 28 - March 29) on what corresponds to the end of March of our current calendar, then Zacharias was visited by the angel, and his wife became pregnant, in the month of June. Remember also that Passover, one of the High Holy weeks of the Jews, occurred during the time interval from late March to June - putting off Zacharias' priestly course for one week. Assuming a full-term pregnancy of 9 months, Elizabeth gave birth to John sometime in March. This means Jesus' birth would have taken place the following September. But in which year? And what if Zacharias was serving his priestly course during his second time of the year, in December? This would mean that Elizabeth gave birth to John in September, and Jesus was born the following March. In fact, many modern historians and theologians readily accept a spring date for the birth of Christ because of the passage in Luke regarding the angel who appeared to shepherds guarding their flocks in the field. Several of these historians assert that the only time shepherds were in the fields with the flocks was spring, which was lambing season. The lambs were an important part of the feast of the Passover. However, flocks of sheep were habitually kept in the fields, from early March until late October, and sometimes all year round. It does not seem reasonable that the shepherds would leave them unattended at all, as important as they were to Passover, where they would be subject to predators and theft. In other words, the sheep provide us with no real clue as to the time of the Nativity. Again let us go back to the census of Caesar Augustus - the oath required of all people in the Roman empire and client kingdoms, which began in the late summer or early autumn of 3 BC. If this was indeed the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, and it seems quite probable that it was, than Jesus had to have been born sometime around this period. We know from the Biblical stories of the Nativity that Mary was "great with child" - in other words, close to full-term. We know that once Joseph and Mary arrived at their destination, Bethlehem, she went into labor and delivered. This makes September of 3 BC the most likely month of Jesus' birth, with John being born in March of 3 BC. We know also that Jesus' birth had to occur before September 26 of that year, because the High Holy week of Tabernacles was from September 26 to October 3 in 3 BC; this required Jews to be in Jerusalem to celebrate this holy festival. Yet Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. The Romans would not have selected the three primary festival seasons for a census when most of the Jews in Palestine were required to be in Jerusalem. Luke tells us that the city of Bethlehem was crowded because of the census - NOT because people were crowding toward Jerusalem for ceremonial purposes. There are other historical markers that point to the year 3 BC as the year of Jesus' birth. Luke's narrative states that Jesus began his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius' reign as Emperor of Rome, when Jesus was about 30. Unfortunately Luke does not tell us if he used the Roman method of reckoning Tiberius' 15th year, or that which people in Judaea and Syria were accustomed to, which antedated the reign of kings and emperors to Tishri One ( the Jewish New Year's Day) of the previous year. However, Ernest Martin believes that it is more likely that Luke was using the Eastern method of reckoning Tiberius' reign, because he was writing his gospel to the Greeks and Romans, to Gentiles in general, and to one Christian convert, Theophilus, in particular. This method of reckoning would put the whole year in which Tiberius became emperor of Rome on August 19, 14 AD as his first year of rule. This means that New Year's day for the beginning of that year begins the first year of Tiberius. Hence, the whole year from Tishri One, 13 AD to Tishri One, 14 AD would have been the first year of Tiberius. Consequently, Tiberius 15th year would have been from Tishri One in 27 AD to Tishri One in 28 AD. This would put Jesus' birth somewhere in 3 BC, given that he was "about thirty" when he began his ministry. This also fits nicely with the Jewish belief that spiritual maturity did not begin until the age of thirty. Many scholars have limited their time frame of Jesus' birth to the period before 4 BC, as most of them accept the fact that Herod the Great died in 4 BC. We know a great deal about Herod's death, from the works of Flavius Josephus, who stated that Herod died after a lunar eclipse and was buried before Passover. There were lunar eclipses in March 23 of 5 BC (total), March 13 of 4 BC (partial) and January 10 of 1 BC (total). There was also an eclipse on September 15, 5 BC, but this eclipse has been ruled out for a variety of reasons. Herod was in Jericho when the rabbis were executed - Jericho was where his winter palace was located. Because of his ill health, he was advised by his physicians to return to Jericho from Jerusalem, because the climate was better for his health. He would not have been in Jericho in September, because the heat at that time of year would have been unbearable. He was critically ill at the time, and would hardly have subjected himself to the late summer heat of Jericho in his condition. The day of the eclipse, after the executions, it was said that the moon that night was red with the blood of the murdered rabbis. The eclipse of March 13 of 4 BC was only a partial - 40% at that. This would not have turned the moon red. Furthermore, there was not enough time between this eclipse, and the final burial of Herod's body at the Herodian, once all the customs, and mourning periods required at the time, to take place. The March 23, 5 BC eclipse suffers from the same problems. The problem is that Josephus wrote that the eclipse of 4 BC was the eclipse with which Herod's death was associated. This is why most scholars have asserted that Herod died in 4 BC. However, it must be remembered that there were no Xerox machines in the first century AD. Manuscripts were copied painstakingly by hand and errors were made. In this case, Josephus, writing some 100 years after the birth of Christ, may have made the error himself - or some poor scribe, toiling by candlelight in the late hours simply copied the date incorrectly. Those proponents of the March, 4 BC eclipse claim that, because the elaborate funeral preparations took so much time, that the Passover Josephus refers to is the Passover in the year following Herod's death. This reasoning has a number of flaws. It was recorded, by Josephus, that Archelaus, Herod's son and successor, was able to accomplish several matters of state before Passover began. Archelaus would hardly have waited an entire year to assume the throne; in fact, Josephus reports that the new king went to Rome as soon as Passover was ended in order to confirm his kingship with the Roman Emperor. Josephus reports that both the public and private mourning periods had been carried out before Archelaus began making state decisions. Furthermore, it was customary at the time of a king's death for the king's royal treasury to be returned to Rome. Caesar's financial officer for Syrian affairs, one Sabinus, met Archelaus at the port city of Caesarea in order to secure the treasure of the dead king. It is hard to believe that Sabinus would have waited 13 months to take charge of Herod's treasury, which in essence belonged to Rome. Josephus wrote about the circumstances surrounding Herod's funeral in great detail. Herod had left explicit instructions regarding his funeral; it was to be the grandest funeral in all of human history. To make sure that the Jewish people would also be in mourning, Herod had first invited, then imprisoned, many prominent Jewish elders. Messengers were sent out from Jericho to all parts of Herod's realm, bearing orders that all the elders of the cities and villages come to Jericho on pain of death. Since the northern cities of Herod's kingdom were some 130 miles away, it would have taken at least a week from the day the order was issued to get them all to Jericho. Once they were there, they were locked up in the hippodrome. Herod gave further orders that they were all to be put to death the day Herod died. This would ensure that the entire Jewish community would be in mourning, albeit not for Herod. Fortunately, this monstrous plan was never carried out; Herod's successors immediately released the elders after Herod's death. There were only 29 days between the eclipse of March 13, 4 BC and Passover - and the public mourning period alone was 30 days. Furthermore, custom required the body to be borne to its final resting place on the shoulders of family members, on foot. And as was Jewish custom, the mourners were unshod. Members of the royal family were hardly used to bearing heavy burdens over rough roads in bare feet. The burial site, the Herodian, was some 25 miles from Jericho. The procession went in "stages", much like the Roman armies traveled. This meant that in all likelihood, the distance the funeral cortege could have traveled was approximately 1 mile per day, with stopovers in each town so that the body could lay in state for a period of time in each one of them, enabling the local townspeople to pay their respects. Another reason for the slow rate of travel was to keep the body intact; it was embalmed with honey, as was the custom of the time. This anointing of the body with honey took place once per day to prevent putrefaction. One can only imagine the hordes of flies that accompanied the funeral cortege (no doubt paying their final respects), to say nothing of the odor of decaying flesh. If the bier were mounted on a carriage and drawn by horseback over the rough road, the body would have fallen to pieces en route. Also, a suitable military escort for the funeral cortege had to be assembled; Herod was hated by the Jews and there was a high risk of desecration of the body on the trip to the Herodian. Archelaus, his successor, was also at high risk of assassination. When one adds on the tasks of organizing the procession (it took some 500 domestics to carry spices that were also used in the preservation process), and the time it took to secure the royal treasury from Jerusalem for its role in the burial rites, this whole process was more likely to have taken 8-10 weeks, not 29 days. The only eclipse that fits this timeline is that of January 10, of 1 BC. This leaves us free to look at the years 3 and 2 BC, instead of limiting our search to the years prior to 4 BC. In conclusion, it was the first Jupiter/Venus conjunction of August 12, 3 BC in the constellation Cancer that alerted the Magi to look for further signs. They found them - in the triple conjunction of Jupiter in Regulus in the constellation Leo. But it was the second conjunction, on June 17, 2 BC, in the evening, of Jupiter and Venus, in the constellation Leo, that started the Magi on their way west. Although the Magi probably had predicted these celestial events in advance, they wanted confirmation that their predictions would come to pass. The "star" they followed was the planet Jupiter, the King Planet, which, having gone through its retrograde motion, appeared to stand still on precisely December 25, 2 BC in the southern sky - and from Jerusalem it would appear that Jupiter had come to rest directly over Bethlehem. It remained stationary for 6 days, and to add to the symbolic significance, it was stationary in the center, or perhaps "womb", of the constellation Virgo. This explanation is elegant in its simplicity, but often the simplest answers are the correct ones. This scenario, first presented by Dr. Ernest Martin, is the only one that fits the facts that we have at our disposal and I believe it to be by far the most plausible to date. But it requires us to go back in time, and attempt to understand the prevailing concepts of astronomy/astrology of 2000 years ago. For many astronomers today, this is a difficult task. Yet there is something compelling about the story of the Star that urges us, as amateur astronomers, to attempt to unravel the mystery surrounding it. Whatever the Star of Bethlehem was, it has had more impact on humankind than any star before or since. It is also possible that the mystery of the Star will never be completely solved. But for many of us, it is the mystery itself that drives us to find the solution. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY NOTE: URLs are subject to change. The URLs listed below were current at the time of writing. Some may have changed since then. Those URLs that are not linked could not be verified as of 12/24/98. Bidelman, Dr. William P. The Bimillenary of Christ s Birth: The Astronomical Evidence. Reprinted from the Planetarian, September 1991.< http://www.griffithobs.org/IPSBidelman.html > Binder, Richard. The Star of Bethlehem. Originally written December 1984; last revised July 1997. < http://members.aol.com/pugnax/StarOfBethlehem/ > Chester, Craig. The Star of Bethlehem. Monterey Institute for Research in Astronomy. Reprinted from IMPRIMUS, December 1993, 22(12). Hillsdale, MI C.I.M. Outline #19, Volume 3. The Star of Bethlehem: What Was It? < http://www.fni.com/cim/briefings/star.txt > Collins, Kenneth W. The Star of Bethlehem.1995. < http://www.kencollins.com/Why-01.htm > Dietrich, Bill. Star of Wonder: Astronomical Events That Could Have Shone Down On Bethlehem. Seattle Times, December 24, 1996. < http://seattletimes.com/todaysnews/browse/html/altstar_122496.html > Greetham, Rev. Phil. The Wise Men and the Star of Christ. 1997 http://ourworld.compuserve.com/hompages/p_greetham/wisemen/chron1.html < http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/p_greetham/wisemen/chron1.html > Hamilton, Edith. Mythology: Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes. Penguin Books, LTD. 1940. The Holy Bible, King James edition. The Holy Bible, NIV (New International Version) 10th Anniversary Edition. Josephus, Flavius. (born Joseph ben Matthias) Antiquities of the Jews ca 100 AD. < http://wesley.nnc.edu/josephus > Josephus, Flavius. War of the Jews. ca 100 AD. < http://wesley.nnc.edu/josephus > Leake, Jonathan. Wise Men of West Find The Star Of Bethlehem. London Times, November 24, 1996. Martin, Ernest L. The Star of Bethlehem: The Star That Astonished The World. 1996. ASK Publications, PO Box 25000, Portland, OR 97225 ISBN 0-945657-87-0 Morris, Henry M., Ph.D. Star Witness. Institute for Creation Research, 1985. www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-150.htm < http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-150.htm > Mosley, John. Common Errors in Star of Bethlehem Planetarium Shows. Reprinted from the Planetarian, Third Quarter 1981. < http://www.griffithobs.org/IPSChristmasErrors.html > No author listed. The Star of Bethlehem. < http://riemann.usno.navy.mil/AA/faq/docs/faq3.html > No author listed. The Origin of Christianity. http://www.widowmaker.com/~piso/html/forward.html Pratt, John P. Yet Another Eclipse For Herod. Reprinted from the Planetarian, 19(4):8- 14. 1990. < http://www.griffithobs.org/IPSPlanPlatt.html > Rozell, Ned. Searching for the Star of Bethlehem. Alaska Science Forum, December 12, 1996. Article #1315. < http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1315.html > Stasiuk, Garry T. The Magi s Star. < http://www.pacifier.com/~garrys/Magi.html > Strobel, Nick. The Star of Bethlehem: An Astronomical Perspective. December 1995. University of Washington, Department of Astronomy, Box 351580, Seattle, WA 98195- 1580. Email - strobel@astro.washington.edu < mailto:strobel@astro.washington.edu > Walden, B. The Star of Bethlehem. < http://www2.trincoll.edu/~bwalden/ast-proj/group7/star.html > Webb, John Charles, Jr. The Star of Bethlehem: The Pi Factor. 1997. http://www.alohanet/~johnboy/pi.htg/pi.htm < http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/pi.htg/pi.htm > Zouhar, Paul James. Star of Bethlehem: Chart of Bethlehem Star. 1996, 1997. http://www.abeso.com/artdenz/ari/betstar/html Simulations of pertinent astronomical events were performed using TheSky software, Version IV. Published by Software Bisque, Golden, CO. 1996 Additional simulations performed with RedShift 2. Published by Maris Multimedia Ltd. 1995. And Distant Suns, RomTech, Inc. 1995. Copyright 1989-95 by R. Michael Smithwick. The Star of Bethlehem: An Astronomical and Historical Perspective - Copyright 1997 by Pulcherrima Productions. No part of this article may be reproduced without written consent of Pulcherrima Productions or the author.

Crater Lake National Park: Serene Beauty After Volcanic History https://www.icr.org/article/crater-lake-national-park/

Badlands National Park: “Flood Features and Fossils” https://www.icr.org/article/13856/?+Facts+Is+Now+Available Mammoth site at Hot Springs Video: Awesome Science: Explore the Mammoth Site World's Largest Petrified Park and Museum - Lemmon, S.D. FREE Ever seen a gas station made of petrified wood? Or a museum made of petrified wood with a floor of fossilized grass? How about 100 conical shaped structures some 20 feet tall, made of petrified wood and concretions* called “cannonballs”? How about a castle with turrets reaching 32 feet into the air, all made of petrified wood! This city park was created in the 1930’s, after the towns people collected petrified wood in a 25 mile radius and brought it all together. Petrified wood Evolution would want you to believe that it takes millions of years for wood to petrify or turn to stone. It doesn’t take a long time for wood to petrify. It takes the right chemical conditions for wood to become petrified. For example, a farmer’s fence posts below the ground dating from the mid-1800’s, were found totally petrified! The top portion had rotted away while those in the ground had petrified! A piece of wood was dangled in Yellowstone’s silica hot springs for a year and was found to be substantially petrified! Petrified wood can be found at the chapel of Santa Maria de Salute in Venice, Italy. This massive stone block chapel was built in 1630 to celebrate the end of the Plague. The city of Venice is built on water saturated sand and clay, so the chapel’s foundation was reinforced with 180,000 wooden pilings. How have these wooden pilings remained firm for some 400 years? They are petrified! The once wooden pilings have turned to stone! It does not take a long time to petrify, just the right conditions. Petrified wood is not as rare as you may think. In fact it is an abundant fossil and found worldwide. To make petrified wood, wood needs to be buried in oxygen-poor sediment. Water then percolates through the ground bringing with it minerals. Cell by cell, the original wood is completely dissolved away and replaced. The ideal environment for wood to become petrified is burial by volcanic ash. This provides the needed minerals and hot water for the wood to petrify. The color of the petrified wood depends on the minerals in the water. Arizona’s petrified wood is famous for its yellows and reds (from the iron minerals) and green and blues (from the copper). The petrified wood of the Dakotas are usually very light brown or cream colored. The Flood of Noah’s day would have had the right conditions in order for wood to petrify; the trees had to be buried quickly before decomposing. Living trees that die and fall in the forest will decompose from fungus, bacteria, and other creatures. Flood waters would have percolated down into the soil extracting minerals and depositing them in the wood. Petrified wood is abundant and worldwide, yet it rarely occurs today because of the special conditions required. What event in history would have worldwide deep burial of wood in a water saturated ground? The Flood of Noah’s time provides the answer. So the next time you pick up a piece of petrified wood, realize you are holding a piece of evidence for a worldwide flood, the Flood of Noah’s day. -Ham, Ken, ed, 2010. The New Answers Book 3. Master Books: Green Forest, AR. p. 96. - Morris, Dr. John. 2002. The Geology Book. Master Books: Green Forest, AR. p. 71. - Snelling, Dr. Andrew. September 1995. “Instant Petrified Wood”. Creation Magazine, p. 38-40. *Concretions When handed a concretion, I thought it looked like a perfectly round cannonball and I wanted to know who made it. I found out concretions are round rocks made of silt or clay sized particles that have cemented together to look like a cannonball. They are very common throughout the rock record and come in a variety of sizes with some concretions the size of boulders. They often erode out of sedimentary layers. Is there anything inside? Some concretions have organic material within, others have no organic material. Concretions are not being formed today. Giant red concretions almost 10 feet in diameter can also be found having weathered out of a side hill at Theodore Roosevelt national park- north unit. So, how were they formed? Within the Flood framework, these concretions would have formed as they were rolled along in high energy forces resulting in rapid formation and burial. Froede Jr. Carl R., 2007. Geology by Design. Master Books: Green Forest, AR. p.82-90. Grand River Museum - FREE Lemmon, South Dakota This is a creation museum with dozens of displays of dinosaurs and fossils found in the area. This museum is unique in that these are not plaster cast models but the real thing. This museum also features exhibits on the Native Americans and cowboys.

On April 18, 2015, Biologos held a seminar at Constance Evangelical Free Church in Andover Minnesota, co-sponsored by MacLaurin CSF, a Christian study center at the University of Minnesota, which recently merged with Christian Student Fellowship. The title was "Integration of Science and Faith" and the goal was stated like this: "What if, rather than emphasizing opposition, we sought to understand the common ground shared by science and faith, without compromising either the science or Scripture and the Christian faith?" Speakers were John Walton (Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton) and Keith B. Miller (Professor of Geology at Kansas State). Biologos, founded by Human Genome Project coordinator Francis Collins, states on its web site: Core Commitments We embrace the historical Christian faith, upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible. We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years. We seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible. We strive for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views. We aim for excellence in all areas, from science to education to business practices. Attendees at the conference heard from Dr. Walton that Adam and Eve were real people but had been chosen from among hominids to represent the human race and were thus not the parents of all. Also heard was the assertion that "very good" is not "perfect" and there was death in the Garden of Eden. Dr. Miller stated that there was no geologic evidence for a worldwide flood. So the question should come to mind, how is this "upholding the authority and inspiration of the Bible?" Can a person be a real Christian and be wrong about certain issues? Of course! The heart of the gospel is that I recognize that I am a sinner, helpless to save myself and call on the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive my sins and be the Lord of my life. As time goes on, the Holy Spirit will convict the growing believer of those areas of life that are incompletely surrendered. We are warned that this is an ongoing battle. Romans 12:1 - 2: "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God -- this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is -- his good, pleasing and perfect will." Francis Collins became a Christian as an adult and an academic -- which means that he was necessarily committed to an evolutionary world view because you do not rise in that world as an intellectual outlier. At the conclusion of the Human Genome Project, he declared that the work had proven evolution. Dr. Collins based that conclusion on the presence of "junk DNA", which he and the academic community considered useless remnants of our evolutionary past. From his book "The Language of God," he claimed that huge portions of our genome are repetitive junk: "Mammalian genomes are littered with such AREs [ancient repetitive elements]" wrote Collins, "with roughly 45 percent of the human genome made up of such genetic flotsam and jetsam." In the intervening years, functions have been found for the "junk." In fact a new level of complexity not previously understood has been revealed. Areas of the DNA that do not code for genes include sophisticated regulatory mechanisms that turn genes off and on -- essential for development and ongoing life. Dr. Collins could have retracted his conclusions, risked the wrath of his secular colleagues and re- examined the case for creation ex nihilo (creation of the universe from nothing and Adam and Eve as special creations "in the image of God" and placed in a perfect environment.) But he did not. Gathering a following who agreed with him and receiving a large grant from the Templeton Foundation, he set out to re-educate the churches about what he considered the real message of Genesis and the proper acceptance of evolution as God's method of creating. He is able to offer materials and resources very reasonably because of the Templeton funding and able to gain a hearing because of his reputation and the (falsely) reassuring statement of "Core Commitments." Finally in 2015, Collins admitted that his original contention, that "junk DNA proved evolution," was fallacious -- in fact it was "hubris." So-called "Junk" actually has critical regulatory functions. But he has not so far called off the attack dogs of Biologos who continue to seek to deride, belittle and mock the teaching of special creation by Christians. Come on, Dr. Collins! Collins Redaction (Used by permission of World Magazine). But Collins did not call off Biologos from their mission to “save evangelicals” from young earth creation! Christians and their churches, overwhelmed by the power of the opposition in so many cultural areas and perhaps tired of fighting so many battles, will find it attractive to be able to say, "we can believe in both evolution and creation." Is there any precedent for this sort of challenge? Read Paul's warning about those who distort the truth: Acts 20:28 - 32 "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!" If you agree with Biologos, I challenge you to re-open your mind and look at the powerful case for intelligent design, imposed on nature, not arising from it by natural laws -- which themselves require a designer of unimaginable sophistication. And also begin to investigate the surprisingly powerful case for a young earth, effectively censored by powerful propaganda but occasionally peeking out, like in the case of dinosaur bones with intact un-fossilized marrow in the bones and even a thoughtful consideration of the fact that the billions of fossils all over the world had to be buried quickly and deeply to escape decay. If you disagree with Biologos, I challenge you to speak the truth, in love, of course, but making resources available to your churches and friends who may have only heard one side of the story. It may be risky, to be considered intellectual Neanderthals (actually the Neanderthals were quite bright, but you know what I mean) and to be confronted with questions you may not be able to answer. Yet there are MANY resources. We have 140 Creation Web Sites linked to www.tccsa.tc . Also look at the article linked below and a printable version of this article. As the Lord said in Joshua 1:9 "Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go." Terrified is what you feel in the short term, discouraged in the long battle. Does that about cover it? Ross S. Olson MD

Christopher Rupe and Dr. John Sanford In his personal prologue, John Sanford admits that he, as a mature scientist in the field of genetics, had accepted the story of human evolution without question until he determined that his own field showed the impossibility of that scenario. He collaborated to write this book because when he presents his case against evolution, as laid out in his book Genetic Entropy , people argue that he must be wrong because the fossils clearly show ape to human evolution. In tackling that topic, he answers the objection that neither he nor Christopher Rupe have PhDs in paleoanthropology by pointing out that paradigm-challenging ideas never come from within a field, where “group think” rules. The book systematically analyzes the data, picking up the thread begun in the 1992 book, Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow. Time has not helped the evolutionist cause. More specimens and better analytical techniques have solidified the case. Neanderthal has been shown to be fully human and from the archeological record, Homo erectus also makes tools, art and buries its dead, despite having physical deformities. Essentially, genus Homo, including Nadeli and “Hobbit” are all humans, some degenerate, due to small population size, inbreeding, starvation and changes in the population that result from those conditions. If you use modern forensic computer programs to reconstruct the appearance of these individuals, instead of evolutionarily biased artistic reconstructions, you get faces of people you might see on the street today. “Lucy,” the archetypical human precursor, is a very incomplete skeleton. The hands and feet are missing and the skull and pelvis fragmented. Thus a lot of latitude was possible in the reconstruction of the anatomy. Overall, Australopithecus is clearly an ape but at this point in the narrative a more disturbing element is introduced. Some of the bones found with her seemed to belong to a Homo species. Then a track of footprints was found (far away from Lucy) and even slightly older but fully human in form. The largest would have worn a size 11 shoe and probably been over 6 feet tall. Lucy was about 3 foot even! Disputes arose about the dating but eventually the prints were attributed to Lucy’s kind. Museums today depict Lucy with human feet and hands (and a thoughtful expression on her face.) As more specimens indicated that Australopithecus had ape-like hands and feet, it was proposed that there was sexual dimorphism – the males human-like and the females apish. That ought to get a feminist response – if there is a difference in humans, usually the men are the more ape-like. The expose of the dating controversies ought to also attract lawyers, as the dating and re-dating, rejection and rationalization of dating techniques shows that the theory drives the data rather than the other way around. Maybe psychologists ought to get in the mix too because every fossil hunter clearly thinks that his is the key discovery and bends heaven and earth to support it. Political intrigue and clever marketing are rewarded. But as a result, every time a new discovery is supported, it throws human evolution into turmoil. After dismantling the fossil evidence, Sanford reviews the genetic evidence, which is devastating to any possible positive change and conclusive that every species is deteriorating. Having removed all other possibilities, the authors suggest the only rational conclusion: that humans did not evolve but were created. The authors deal with all the usual objections to that possibility and end with a personal appeal. An evolutionist will have to be impressed with the extensive documentation and be led to the conclusion unwillingly, but hopefully affected by the humble expression of human concern of these two diligent authors. The book is well illustrated and has its extensive documentation in footnotes. It was published by FMS Publications ( www.contestedbones.org ) in 2017, 333 pages, costing $20.00 softcover, $25.00 hardcover. It could use an index. Ross S. Olson MD

In a commentary published 7/22/2012 (“Genesis of a Social Divide”), Mr. Peter Lescak described his change from belief in biblical creation to evolution. I went through that transformation, too. But later I went beyond it, back to young earth creation, backed up by scientific evidence. This happened when years later I was given a book by biochemist A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Creation of Life which showed clearly that order of the kind seen in life does not arise spontaneously by natural law and requires an intelligent intervention. Why was I never shown this evidence before? I began to read widely. We recognize an arrowhead as a product of intelligent manipulation, even though it is theoretically possible that erosion might form one. A living cell is as complex as a city and the human brain is as complex as the internet and no natural process produces things like the Encyclopedia Britannica. In fact, time and chance degrade information. The mathematical odds of forming a single protein molecule from its component parts can be shown to be so unlikely that it could not have happened anywhere in the known universe in 30 billion years, much less be combined with the hundreds of other components to form the simplest possible living cell. Similarity of form does not prove common ancestry but can also mean common design. (Young earth creationists believe that the original Genesis kinds were intrinsically capable of great diversification, something we have seen with the breeds of dogs – who remain dogs, none-the-less.) And fundamentally, fossils require rapid burial. Closed clams, seen all over the world, were covered before they could open in death. Firstly, the geologic column is said to be the result of slow deposition of material over tens to hundreds of millions of years. Yet there are sharp distinctions between the layers as if something suddenly changed. Further, in the Grand Canyon there is a 200 million year gap in the sequence, between the Cambrian and the Mississippian with blending at the junction. The lower layer would have had to remain soft for 200 million years, waiting for the next geologic epoch. It is much easier to see it as the result of a truly worldwide flood, with massive erosive forces caused by tidal waves sweeping over the entire globe, depositing their loads in twice daily low tides. Formations such as the very pure St Peter Sandstone require rapid current to sort and move it, usually attributed to river deltas. Yet it covers an area from Minnesota to Missouri, Illinois to Nebraska, to a depth of 100 to 300 feet. The presence of marine fossils rules out desert sand dunes. The flood model also can explain the presence of huge deposits of pure uncontaminated salt and gypsum as chemical deposition of mixed brines, not as the remnants of evaporated seas. The source of the water and the mechanism of a worldwide flood are being worked out in competing models but the fact remains that the uniformitarian origin of the layers is not credible, as shown by polystrate fossils, such as 30 – 50 foot tree trunks standing upright. Obviously they could not wait for thousands much less millions of years to be covered and fossilized or they would have rotted. And the ocean would be like the Dead Sea if it had been taking in salt for billions of years. Radiometric dating has been used to support long ages, but dating of lava samples from volcano eruptions of known historical ages has given erroneous ages in the millions. Recently the project called RATE has shown that rocks contain too much helium to be millions of years old and also there is measurable carbon 14 in all fossils, oil, coal and even diamonds when it ought to be totally gone, implying a young and similar age for all those materials. Evidence of coexistence of humans and dinosaurs is vigorously opposed by the evolutionary establishment but is actually quite convincing. Human and dinosaur tracks have been found in the same strata and have been uncovered on film to prove that they were not manufactured. In Ica, Peru and Acambara, Mexico, artifacts over 2000 years old have been found that depict humans and dinosaurs together, some showing apparent domestication. Recently a T Rex bone was found that contained blood vessels, cells and collagen fibers in the marrow cavity. Rather than admit that this specimen could not be 65 million years old, the response was to claim that we need to rethink how soft tissue is preserved for long ages. In a demonstration of the incredible power of professional peer pressure, the discoverer, a self proclaimed evangelical Christian, claimed that young earth creationists were “hijacking” her data. But bucking peer pressure, plant geneticist J. C. Sanford, asked, “Can natural selection improve the human genome?” The result is in his book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome . The conclusion? Natural selection cannot improve the human genome. It cannot even prevent steady deterioration. There are at least 100 new mildly deleterious mutations in each surviving individual with each generation. (The severe defects do not survive.) The overall fitness of the human race is decreasing by about 1 - 2% per generation. He concludes that we are headed for extinction as a race and that the human genome cannot yet be a thousand generations old or we would already be extinct. This, of course, is contrary to evolution but fits completely with the Biblical account of a perfect creation, spoiled by sin and a world that will someday – perhaps very soon, -- come to an end.

In homes, offices, factories and laboratories, chaos never turns into order on its own and proceeds to maintain and expand itself, although the theory of evolution suggests this would be a normal and natural event. Instead, any order turns into disorder sooner or later, as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics. Everyday experience and empirical science seem to contradict the theory of evolution. This contraction is usually explained as a virtual one, by stating that the second law of thermodynamics only holds for closed systems and by reference to the experiments of Miller, Nobel Laureate Prigogine and Dawkins as a proof that in open systems chaos definitely can turn into order by itself. In this study, this argumentation is investigated more accurately, and found to be untenable. The implications for science are explored. When discussing the theory of evolution, sometimes the second law of thermodynamics is brought up to contradict the theory. This objection from science is mostly answered by stating that the second law only holds for closed systems, and that in open systems - like the earth - chaos can turn into order just by itself. The correctness of this thesis is underpinned by referring to the world-famous Miller experiment, the research of Nobel Laureate Prigogine into chaotic systems (Prigogine, 1984) and the computer simulations of evolution by Dawkins (1991). Everyday experience, however, shows that any kind of order - for instance, a tidied up room or desk, an efficiently moving production process, or a complicated chemical substance - never emerges by itself, but that directed external effort is necessary to establish and maintain it. In homes, offices, factories and laboratories, chaos never turns itself into order and proceeds to maintain and expand itself. Every system appears subjected to the omnipresent property of reality that any order finally turns into the ultimate disorder, if directed external effort to maintain the order is stopped. The experiments of Miller, Prigogine and Dawkins, however, seem to suggest organic molecules have a tendency to order themselves on their own when an advantageous fluctuation of chaos emerges. But is this suggestion realistic? How do the experiments of Miller, Prigogine and Dawkins relate to the second law of thermodynamics, and is it true that the second law only holds for open systems? Has a director of a chemical factory to reckon that one day evolution theory will lead to techniques that will make simple chemicals start arranging themselves into more complex substances without directed external effort? And should software engineers worry that one day they will be replaced by fully automated mutation and selection processes that will expand a program of a few bytes into a complex billion-byte program? In this study, these questions are investigated. First we look at thermodynamics, and the second law in particular, more accurately. Then, we assess Prigogine’s examples of chaos turning into order, as well as the Miller experiment. Next, we investigate the processes of order turning into chaos in computer programs and in DNA, as well as the provisions that are present to maintain the initial order. Dawkins’ computer simulations of evolution illustrate the findings. Finally, we discuss our results and close with directions for further research and some concluding remarks. Thermodynamics, Chaos and Order Thermodynamics is often looked upon as a specialist sub-area of physics, where complicated calculations of phenomena such as the compression and expansion of gasses are made. This image of making complicated calculations is more or less correct, but thermodynamics is definitely not a backwater corner of physics. On the contrary, it lays down the relationships between the energy, heat, order and probability of systems, varying from motors to molecules, and is one of the pillars of physics and chemistry. Thermodynamics is a science that emerged from the field of engineering. Over the years, empirical knowledge was laid down into general rules that appeared to be trustworthy and finally gained the status of laws. Since thermodynamics deals with systems in reality, which are always influenced from the outside, the laws of thermodynamics relate to open systems. The first law of thermodynamics describes how the internal energy of a system changes when energy is passed to the system, or when it affects its surroundings. The second law describes the relationship between the supply of energy to a system and the change of its order. The third law describes the change in the order of a system as the temperature approaches absolute zero, and the fourth (or zeroth) law concerns the way irreversible processes influence one another. The Second Law Many inventors have dreamed of constructing a system that keeps moving without the supply of energy. An example of the design of such a perpetual motion machine is an electric motor that is fed by the electricity generated by a dynamo that is driven by the same motor. Disappointingly, the dynamo does not supply enough electricity to keep the motor running, and both stop when the motor is switched to the electricity generated by the motor-driven dynamo. Numerous other methods of constructing a perpetual motion machine have been tried, but time and again it appears that the energy supplied to a system never can be extracted from it completely in the form of work done by the system on its surroundings (A), and that a system can never be brought to a higher energy level without doing work on the system (B). As a result every perpetual motion machine construction always goes back to standing still. The empirical principles denoted as A and B are known as Kelvin’s principle and Clausius’ principle, respectively. In thermodynamics, both rules are combined into one principle, which is known as the second law of thermodynamics. It states that the supply of energy to a system resulting in a movement from a state 1 into a state 2 always leads to a smaller decrease of the disorder of the system than would be possible theoretically. The second law has the shape of a mathematical calculable formula (see for instance, Van den Bergen, 1974, p. 29), thanks to the use of the concept of “entropy” as a measure for the disorder of a system: The left term of the formula describes the supply of energy over the boundaries of a system when moving from state 1 to state 2. The right term describes the decrease of the entropy of the system. Using Bolzman’s law S = k Ln W (W is the probability of the state of a system) and elementary mathematics, the entropy S of, for instance, human DNA (a string of 3 billion characters) can be calculated. The second law indicates that a system can only move to a less probable state (i.e., a state of higher order/less disorder) if energy is supplied to the system from the outside. This corresponds to the principle of Clausius. The second law also indicates that not all supplied energy can be transformed into a reduction of the disorder/entropy, but that always some entropy-reduction is lost. This corresponds to the principle of Kelvin. The second law thus expresses the same properties of physical reality as the principles of Kelvin and Clausius do. No Conservation of Entropy The second law not only indicates that a directed supply of energy over the boundaries of a system (hereinafter referred to as a “directed external effort”) is always needed to reduce the disorder of a system, it also tells what happens when directed external effort is lacking. In that case, the entropy (disorder) is not conserved, but increases, until the maximum state of disorder is reached. It is clear that for closed systems the left term of the second law is zero and the entropy of the system will increase. But for open systems too, the left term can be zero. If an open system is subjected to undirected external effort, for instance random flows of wind and water, lightning, radiation, or random movement and transportation processes, than the left term will be zero averaged over a longer period of time. After a longer period of time, open systems that are subjected to random, fluctuating energy flows will turn into the largest possible disorder too, as ruins, ragbags, junkyards and car dumps make clear. Order Out of Chaos In open systems that are subjected to undirected external forces, order can emerge, as Nobel Laureate Prigogine has shown (Prigogine, 1984). At a beach, for instance, grains of sand at random jumping in the wind can form regular ripples, and on a cooling window, complex structures of frost flowers can emerge. In addition, Prigogine shows that in living nature, too, chaos can turn into order. For instance, bacteria in a chaotic environment can ultimately form regular structures, and in a population of insects the great variation in shape of their wings can ultimately reach one stable form. It seems that when circumstances are advantageous, chaos can turn into order just by itself, in lifeless as well as in living nature. Besides, Miller has shown that random forces have the ability to create the building blocks of life, resulting in the interconnection of lifeless and living nature. All together, a continuous line seems to be present, starting at the self-organization of grains of sand into regular ripples, to the self-organization of organic substances into DNA-building blocks, and finally toward cells containing DNA and living organisms. When looking more accurately into the emergence of order in open systems by the influence of random external forces, firstly it appears that the emerging order is only temporary. Averaged over a longer period of time, the left term of the second law is zero and the disorder in the system will increase, since provisions to maintain the emerged order are missing. On a beach covered by well-structured wind ripples, the wind will blow from a different direction on another day and the wind ripples will disappear. The frost flowers formed on a window pane when water vapor cools and the water molecules are captured into a regular structure of “energetic holes” will disappear as soon as the fluctuating temperature moves above zero, and the water molecules will start moving again. Both the structures of sand grains as the structures of frozen water molecules lack a provision for maintaining the temporary order and will disappear again. Secondly, order that emerges from undirected external forces not only has a temporary character, but does not expand, unless directed external effort is supplied. This law of nature is clearly illustrated by the famous Miller experiment (see fig. 1). Random flashes of electricity can turn basic organic substances into the building blocks of DNA. But the next moment, new flashes may destroy these building blocks. The larger the building blocks, the faster they will be destroyed again. Therefore, Miller transported the building blocks formed towards a distillation flask, sheltering them for destruction by new flashes of lightning, resulting into the production of a more and more concentrated organic soup. Miller’s experiment confirms the second law, and shows that the order in a system can only be maintained and increased by directed external effort. Thirdly, Prigogine puts the examples of chaos turning into order in lifeless nature on the same level as the examples from living nature. In doing so, he overlooks the DNA program in living organisms, which controls the material and energy flows of the organism. A sand grain is just a small lump of silicon. A bacterium, however, can be viewed as an entirely automated and autonomous biochemical robot, interacting with its environment, and maintaining and reproducing itself. Therefore the process of chaotic jumping sand grains turning into orderly ripples cannot be compared to a colony of bacteria forming orderly structures. It is often supposed that organic molecules have a natural bias to order themselves into increasingly complex structures. It is thought that if an advantage fluctuation of chaos arises, the molecules will move to a nearby, higher and maintained level of order; after some time, a subsequent advantageous fluctuation of chaos will arise and another a step of increasing order will be set; et cetera. More accurate assessment of this line of thought, which is handed by Miller and Prigogine, shows, however, that (1) the emergence of order in chaotic systems is only temporary; (2) the maintenance and further expansion of the order that may emerge in chaotic systems demands directed external effort; and (3) the chaotic processes in living nature that sometimes are turned into order are strongly influenced by the DNA programs of the organisms involved. Chaos Out of Order The emergence of chaos out of order is a property of reality that is as omnipresent and as influential as gravity. Sooner or later, cars break down, paint peels off, ships rust, rooms get untidy and dirty, furniture falls apart, faces sag and become ugly, clothes wear out and tear, houses and factories go to ruins, tools become unusable, books and CDs unreadable, and chemical substances loose their activity. All these open systems finally turn into the ultimate state of disorder when directed external effort to maintain them stops. All of this is fully in line with the second law. Order can only be maintained if directed external effort is present. We will illustrate this by investigating the provisions that are present in computer programs to maintain the order, and subsequently the provisions that are present in DNA programs for this purpose. The Maintenance of Order in Computer programs In the ICT-industry, the maintenance of order is a major problem. When information is read or copied, errors can be made, and when storing information, the data can degenerate through radiation, chemicals, or mechanical damage. Therefore, each byte (recording an information entity) contains what is known as a check bit. When a byte is mutated, the check bit changes and the program stops and generates an error massage. The suggestion of evolutionary theory that mutation of a DNA program can lead to the improvement and expansion of it, does not in any case apply to computer programs. The mutation of the bytes of a computer program by mechanical measures or by a software-damaging program will only generate error messages and will never, even after a billion trials, generate any improved or extended program. In evolutionary software development, therefore, only the parameters of a program are changed at random (Koza, 1992). Parameters that lead to an advantageous program output are selected and used as a basis for new random parameter changes, et cetera. In, for instance, the design of aircraft or ships random change of program parameters and selection appears to be a powerful strategy to optimize a certain design within the boundaries of its system space, and adapt it to the demands of a certain environment. Dawkins’ evolution simulation program is a clear example of this technique (Dawkins, 1991). The simulation program can draw symmetric structures of branched lines, which can vary in number, gradient and length. If a certain branched structure (“tree”) vaguely resembles the shape of a living organism (in general an insect), it is selected and new variations of the parameters are tried, searching for an even better resemblance. This procedure of the mutation and selection of the program parameters finally results in the production of a number of insect-like trees. The program, however, continues drawing trees. Only after the addition of extra lines to the computer program (denoted by Dawkins as the addition of new genes) can the functionality of the program be expanded, resulting in the drawing of segmented trees. Only after a complete rewrite will the program start drawing boats, or cars, or aircraft. Dawkins experiment shows that only by directed external effort the order of his drawing program can be expanded, as the second law of thermodynamics predicts. The Maintenance of Order of DNA programs A living cell can be viewed as a fully automated biochemical robot controlled by a DNA program. In an organism, each cell contains the same DNA program, which is continually read and copied. In humans, the DNA program comprises 3 billion characters and would fill a bookcase of 7 meters long and 3 meters high when printed on A4 paper using a Times 12 font, resulting in 4900 characters per page and 100 pages per centimeter of bookshelf (see fig. 2). As in computer programs, the order in a DNA program is subjected to the basic property of reality that any order has a tendency to decay into chaos. This natural process is slowed down by the 8-fold redundancy of the information in the DNA (in pairs of chromosomes, each consisting of two chromatides, which each consist of two complementary strings containing the same information), and by complex biochemical processes around the DNA that continually compare the redundant information and repair damaged characters. In addition to that, living organisms must surmount numerous obstacles in the struggle for food, shelter and a partner. If a certain mutation of the DNA cannot be repaired and is passed to posterity, the offspring is usually beaten in these struggles by the organisms that possess undamaged DNA. In the end, they appear not fit for survival and cannot pass their mutant DNA to posterity, by which the mutation is still eliminated from the gene pool of the species. Despite the continuous repair of the DNA and the presence of selection processes that hinder the passage of damages to posterity, degeneration of the order in the DNA cannot be prevented entirely. Thermodynamics predicts that the “bookcase of 7 by 3 meters” that is stored (8-fold) in every human cell ultimately will be full of errors and will become unreadable. Environmental pollution will speed up the decay, not to mention nuclear disasters or a nuclear war. The most likely place in the DNA that will become unreadable first is the Y-chromosome, which has no partner, and where the mechanism of comparison and repair are 50% less intensive than elsewhere in the DNA (Sykes, 2004). The nuclear disaster in Chernobyl in 1992 led to the widespread and far-reaching disfigurements of plants, animals and people. No improvement in the flora and fauna around Tsjernobyl was observed as a result of the massive mutation of DNA. Also in the field of oncology, longtime research has produced no indication whatsoever that the mutation of DNA may lead to improvement and growth of the gene pool of a species. Nevertheless, evolution theory claims that mutation (= damaging) of the DNA and selection of the resulting improvements is the motor of change in living nature. Cancer researcher Prof. Plasterk (1996, p. 28) makes clear that this is a misconception: "There are bunches of biologists who think that evolution happens by the emergence of a mutation somewhere in the species, that brings a selective advantage. It is known for half a century yet that it does not go like this, and cannot go like this.... The forming of species goes by the selection of combinations, not of mutations." Modern genetics has proven that the numerous changes in the shape of organisms that occur in living nature are not the result of a supposed process of gene mutation and selection, but of the process of gene recombination and selection. Dogs, for example, vary extremely in size, color, coat, behavior, etc., depending on the specific combination of genes from the same gene pool (i.e., of the wolf). Dogs that possess an advantageous combination of genes are selected by dog-breeders for reproduction (see fig. 3). In free nature, natural selection takes place. Finches, for instance, that possess a gene combination for a broad beak are sometimes able to survive, whereas finches with a gene combination for a narrow beak will not. When the selection criteria of the environment change, the combinations of genes that are advantageous will change too, as well as the corresponding appearances of organisms. Their gene pool, however, stays unchanged. The changes in the shape of the beaks of finches or the appearances of dogs thus have nothing to do with the mutation of genes. The mutation of genes is an absolutely different process, which is combated vigorously by mechanisms of comparison and repair in the cell kernel, and by selection processes in the struggle for food, shelter and a partner. Discussion The Tenability of the Theory of Evolution In this study we investigated the contradiction that seems to be present between both real-life experience and empirical science with the theory of evolution. In real life, chaos never turns into order by itself and starts maintaining and expanding itself, as the second law of thermodynamics confirms. Remarkably, the theory of evolution states exactly the opposite, and claims that the change from chaos into order is a natural process. When assessing the line of reasoning that is followed to prove this, we found that the argumentation is based on (a) a misinterpretation of Miller’s-experiment, (b) an unjustified extrapolation of Prigogine’s examples of order emerging temporarily out of chaos, (c) Prigogine’s overlooking of the DNA programs in living organisms, which strongly influence the change of chaos into order in living nature, and (d) the confounding of a supposed process of gene-mutation and selection by the real process of gene-recombination and selection in living nature. We also found that thermodynamics is concerned with open systems and that all processes of chaos turning into order, both in non-living and living nature, are fully in line with the second law of thermodynamics. We illustrated this with Miller’s experiment, Prigogine’s results and the evolution simulation program of Dawkins. We also found that the assumption underlying the theory of evolution that (organic) molecules have a bias to start ordering themselves in the absence of directed external effort into ever more complex structures, is false and fully in contradiction with empirical science and in particular the second law of thermodynamics. In view of these results, the conclusion that the theory of evolution is untenable seems inevitable, as 200 scientists, among which 4 Nobel Laureates, found before in 1991 on a conference in Paris (Staune, 1991). The scientific untenability of the theory of evolution is not surprising. No laboratory staff anywhere in the world seriously consider the possibility that one day they will witness simple substances start ordering themselves into more complex substances that begin to maintain themselves without directed external effort. Likewise, no director of any chemical plant will worry that one day his expensive installations, in which energy is skillfully directed towards basic chemicals in order to produce complicated chemicals, will be no longer necessary because the basic chemicals will start ordering themselves and will be available for free. Although it seems inevitable that the theory of evolution should be rejected, there is no impetus to do so. The theory of evolution does not lie at the basis of scientific theories, methods and techniques people are dependent on in their daily lives and work. The contradiction of the theory with everyday experience and empirical science, therefore, never becomes apparent in painful practical problems caused by evolutionary theory-based methods or techniques that appear to be inadequate. In fact, the theory of evolution has the unassailable position of a generally accepted myth of the origin of life, which can explain any phenomenon in living nature, although these explanations are not testable (a must for a scientific theory). Moreover, the theory articulates the enticing notion that “everything will get better by itself.” As an optimistic myth with a scientific aura, the theory of evolution has a strong position, which is scarcely threatened by what empirical science and everyday experience have to say about chaos and order. Integrity and Progress of Science The history of science shows a continuous rise and fall of theories. The paradigms theories are grounded in, however, are only changed with great difficulty (Kuhn, 1970). If the rejection of a theory were to imply the rejection of the underlying paradigm as well, rejection would be vigorously resisted, as, for example, Galileo experienced when challenging the earth- centered paradigm of the universe. Although the theory of evolution is scientifically untenable, it is not likely that it will be rejected soon, since the theory embodies a powerful and generally accepted paradigm for looking at life, its origin and meaning, which is defended with strong religious sentiments. The contradiction with empirical science, however, corrupts the integrity of science and results in boundaries in scientific theorizing and research that should not exist, to assumptions that are not reliable to build on, and to lines of thought that are false. All of this does not benefit the progress of science. Belief and Science The theory that the order in living nature, and in particular the order in the DNA of organisms, has emerged by itself, must be rejected on scientific grounds. According to thermodynamics, this order can only have emerged by directed external effort. Those who want to denote this directed external effort as “God” must realize that the theory “God created the DNA” is untestable, and thus is not a scientific theory but a belief. The theory “The DNA is the result of intelligent design” is also untestable, and thus a belief. Therefore, any form of creationism cannot fill the gap in the scientific domain that results from rejecting the theory of evolution. It can only be filled by a new testable theory that does not contradict everyday experience and empirical science. In the meantime, the position “We do not have a testable theory (yet) that explains the origin of life” can be taken. The appearance of a gap in scientific knowledge may be uncomfortable, but covering that gap by a theory that contradicts empirical science and everyday experience is worse, and corrupts the integrity of science and hinders the progress of science. Directions for Further Research If the theory of evolution is rejected on scientific grounds, firstly, room emerges to take new directions in DNA research. In view of the fact that mutations of DNA are continually repaired and eliminated in survival and selection processes, it is not likely that 90% of DNA is junk. It is more likely that a DNA program, like any other construction program or cookbook, not only describes what the intended construction is to be built of, but also when and how the building materials must be used. In complex construction programs, this process can embrace more than 90% of the program. Therefore, it must be expected that the 90% of human DNA that does not code for proteins contains process information, for instance how to realize the structure of the skeleton, the heart, the ear, or the eye. This direction of research may lead to new nanotechnology-based techniques to record process information. In medicine, this may lead to the development of a new generation of smart drugs. Secondly, on the interface of DNA-research and computer science, new lines of research are opened in the preservation of the integrity of very large data sets, using multi-redundancy and combined comparison and repair mechanisms. Such techniques seem to be interesting in high-risk environments, for instance space traveling and electronic warfare. Thirdly, it opens new directions of theorizing and research in geology. Since earth layers are dated with fossils and fossils are dated with earth layers, geology and paleontology are linked by circular reasoning. Because evolution theory postulates a high age of fossils, earth layers are dated in hundreds of millions of years, and the assumptions over the initial values in radiometric models are brought in line with that. After removing evolution theory from the domain of science, earth layers need no longer be hundreds of million of years old, and new interpretation of empirical facts becomes possible, for instance the fact that all fossils containing earth layers still contain 14 C. (Arnold, Bard, Maurice & Duplessy, 1987; Beukings, Garfunkel & Lee, 1992; Kretschmer, 1998). Fourthly, in astronomy new directions in theorizing and research become possible when the universe does not necessarily need to be billions of years old in order to allow for the long period of time the evolution theory needs. Assumptions over the initial values of astronomical models can be reconsidered and room emerges for a reinterpretation of empirical findings, for instance the discovery of interconnected red-shift galaxies, and the finding that only 4% of the predicted amount of matter in the universe has actually been perceived yet. Concluding Remarks The theory of evolution contradicts everyday experience and empirical science. In this study, the argumentation to prove the virtuality of this contradiction was investigated and found to be false. Everyday experience and empirical science show that only by directed external effort can chaos turn into maintained order. This principle of reality holds for all open systems, including the DNA program in living organisms. Those who want to denote the external effort that must have caused the order of the DNA as “God” must realize that the theory “God or an Intelligent Designer created the DNA” is untestable, and thus is not a scientific theory but a belief. Therefore, the gap in the scientific domain that results from rejecting the theory of evolution cannot be filled by any form of creationism. It can only be filled by a new testable theory that does not contradict everyday experience and empirical science. In the mean time, the position “We do not have a testable theory (yet) that explains the origin of life” can be taken. That is a very respectable position, for non-scholars and for scholars. References Arnold, M., Bard, E., Maurice, P. & Duplessy, J.C. 1987. 14 C dating with the Gif-sur-Yvette tandetron accelerator: status report. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, B , 29: p.120- 123. Bergen, A.C. van den. 1974. Thermodynamica . Delft: TUD-Press. Beukings, R.P., Gurfinkel D.M. &. Lee, H.W. 1992. Progress at the Osotrace Radiocarbon Facility. Radiocarbon , 28: p.229-236. Dawkins, R. 1991, The Blind Watchmaker . London: Pinguin Books. Koza, J.R. 1992. Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection . Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Kretschmer, W., e.a. 1998. The Erlangen AMS facility and its applications in 14 C sediment and bonedating. Radiocarbon , 40: p.231-238. Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Plasterk, R. 1996. Signaal (column). Intermediair, 25 oktober, p. 28. Prigogine, I & Stengers, I. 1984. Order out of Chaos . Toronto: Bantam Books. Staune, J. 1991. L’Evolution condamne Darwin, Figaro Magazin, 26 oktober. Sykes, B. 2004. Adam’s curse: a future without men . London: Bantam Books. dr. Wim. M. de Jong is innovation management consultant and researcher at INI-Consult. Besides, he is the initiator of the Evoskepsis association. (The objectives of Evoskepsis are the stimulation of the scientific debate over the tenability of the theory of evolution and the defense of science against religion)

Summary: Fingerprints are a legally recognized form of proof. The derived and experimentally confirmed universal electrodynamic force has a combination of spherical and chiral symmetry that produces a unique fingerprint. Chiral symmetry is marked by right and left handedness, mirror symmetry, and spiraling caused by the triple vector cross product R x (R x V) term in the universal force law. Structures with chiral symmetry have a number of identical sub-elements associated with the prime number system, i.e. 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, ... This unique symmetry fingerprint is exhibited on all size scales from the closed charge loop that is the basic building block of elementary particles, to the structure of elementary particles, to the structure of atoms and nuclei, to the structure of molecules, to the structure of crystals, to the internal vein structure of leaves, to the structure of leaf patterns on the plant, to the structure of flower petal patterns, to the structure of seed patterns, to the structure of planets like Saturn, to the structure of our solar system as reflected in the modern version of Bode's Law, to the structure of galaxies, to the structure of the whole universe as reflected in Tifft's quantized red shifts in agreement with Bode’s Law. The evidence above is presented in pictures, graphs and diagrams and appears to prove that the universe is governed on all size scales by the symmetry of the universal electrodynamic force. The Bible indicates in many passages that God interacts with his creation in an electromagnetic fashion. This is seen in Genesis 1:3 when God begins to create the universe, He creates light first. It is seen in the flaming sword of the Cherubim guarding the Garden of Eden after man sins. God speaks to Moses in the wilderness via the burning bush which is not consumed. Also God speaks to the Israelites from Mount Sinai via light, lightning and thunder which are electromagnetic phenomena. When Moses receives the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai, his face glows so brightly from being in the presence of God that he has to cover it up for the sake of his fellow Israelites. God leads the Israelites in the wilderness with a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. When God enters the tabernacle that Moses built, his shekinah glory is an electromagnetic phenomena that resides over the Ark of the Covenant representing the presence of God. The same thing happens when God enters the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem. When Elijah confronts the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel to show whether God is Baal or Jehovah, it is the fire from heaven that decides the issue. When Elijah is taken into heaven, it is a chariot of fire that comes to get him. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are rescued from the fiery furnace by God who is more glorious than the fiery furnace to the Babylonians present. In the New Testament Jesus is transfigured before Peter, James and John so that they can see his glory. The creation of the New Testament Church on the Day of Pentecost was marked by the coming of the Holy Spirit that was indicated by cloven tongues of fire above each person. The same thing happens when the church spreads to the Samaritans and they receive the Holy Spirit. Finally the cloven tongues of fire mark the spreading of the church to the Gentiles when the centurion Cornelius and his household receive the Holy Spirit. The Second coming of Christ is prophesied to be in clouds of glory. The Bible says that the divine force is the electromagnetic force by which God created and sustains the universe and performs miracles. In Habakkuk 3:4 the Bible says “His brightness was like light; He had rays flashing from his hand, and there His power was hidden.” This is further amplified in the New Testament in Hebrews 1:1-3a “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power...” If the identification of the universal electromagnetic force as the divine force is correct, one might expect the symmetry of the universal electrodynamic force to be God’s symmetry also. This appears to be the case. The scripture declares in Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” Matthew 28:19 gives the Great Commission as “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” indicating that God has a triune nature. These same two symmetries are also exhibited in the Tabernacle of Moses and the Temple of Solomon. The Holy of Holies of Moses’ tabernacle (10 x 10 x 10 cubits) and of Solomon’s temple (20 x 20 x 20 cubits) are perfect cubes with triune symmetry. In the tabernacle and temple are additional items with symmetries. The Menorah or light in the tabernacle consists of seven golden candlesticks. In Zechariah 4:10 the lights of the candlesticks are identified as the eyes of the Lord which run to and fro through the whole earth. In the New Testament Revelation 4:5 the seven golden candlesticks are further identified as the seven spirits of God. There are other symmetries associated with the tabernacle. There are five pillars at the entrance and eleven curtains of goats hair used as a covering for the tabernacle. God had told Moses to make the Tabernacle after the heavenly pattern shown him on Mount Sinai (Exodus 25:40) indicating that symmetry was important. Everything that God created appears to bear his symmetry. The triune symmetry of God appears to be the most common form in nature. Did God put his fingerprint in his revelations to man? An analysis of the symmetry of Genesis 1:1 reveals that the layout of the order of the Hebrew letters has perfect triune symmetry, i.e. 3 x 3 x 3 symmetry. There are three letters that occur three times and nine letters that occur twice in an alphabet of 27 unique letters. For this analysis one must use the Hebrew alphabet in use at the time, not the Modern Hebrew alphabet which has changed. Note that in the first verse of the first book of the Bible that God spelled out his unique perfect triune symmetry. We traditionally put the author’s name at the beginning of the book. In the New Testament the Greek alphabet varied from city to city. If one combines the alphabets of all the cities to which the apostles wrote in Greek, one finds that together they also have a unique set of 27 characters. No languages in the world currently have an alphabet with a unique set of 27 characters. According to the Free Online Dictionary beauty is the quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony or symmetry of form or color. Since the spherical and chiral symmetry of form and color in nature is just the fingerprint of the creator, one can say that the fingerprint of God is the source of all beauty in nature.

1. Feathers are highly specialized organs and the distinguishing feature of birds. Even the flightless penguin is classified as a bird because of its feathers. Part of the bird's anatomy is a furcula or "wishbone" and usually a sternum. Birds are warm-blooded and necessarily light-weight, and, it was long argued, the feathers were not preserved in the fossil record because of their delicate nature. However, "flocks" of genuine fossil birds have recently been discovered in China. In contrast to birds, the reptiles have a heavy bone structure, are cold-blooded and have neither furcula nor feathers. The word "Dinosaur" was coined in 1840 by Richard Owen, the dirctor of the British Natural History Museum. Although not believer in Biblical creation, Owen was a vigorous opponent of Darwinian evolution. Dinosaurs are said to have lived from the Jurassic to the Cretaceous Age, that is, 140 to 65 million years ago. There are three classes of dinosaur: The ornithischian or "bird-hipped" type with two very large rear- legs and two very small fore-legs, think of the kangaroo, the ostrich and the T-Rex; The saurischian or lizard- hipped type that walked on four legs and the double- beamed type with four legs, a long neck and a long tail. Not all dinosaurs grew to be large; most were quite small even chicken-sized. In 1833 French paleontologist Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire proposed that the birds had evolved from the ornithischian dinosaurs; this speculation was likely based on the fact that both reptiles and birds are oviparous (lay eggs). Charles Darwin was a great synthesizer of other people's ideas and twenty-six years later, in 1859, gave the world his theory of evolution ( 'Origin of Species ). On p. 280 he lamented that the fossil record should be full of intermediate varieties of creature (transitions) but geology had not yet provided any. He confessed this to be: "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." He then suggested the explanation was due to, "the extreme imperfection of the geological record". One-hundred and fifty years and tens of thousands of fossils later that situation has not changed! 2. However, Darwin's statement above provided a charter for fossil forgers because within months of the publication of the German edition of Darwin's 'Origin (in 1861) an impression of a single, modern-looking feather was "discovered" in the Jurassic limestone of Solnhofen quarry, southern Germany. It was dated at 150 million years and called Archaeopteryx lithographica , meaning "early wing". The limestone from this quarry was used to make lithographic plates for the printing industry while for some time a clandestine fossil forgery business had flourished there. The specimen is commonly referred to as "von Meyer's feather." The sale of this fossil to the Berlin and the Munich museums was negotiated by Dr. Karl Haberlein, medical officer for the district of Pappenheim near Solnhofen. Less than two months later, in 1861, another Archaeopteryx appeared from the same quarry. This was about as big as a pigeon, had remarkably clear feather impressions in the wing and tail areas and was headless. Moreover, it contained a very large furcula or wishbone but England's Thomas. H. Huxley declared this to be, "the greatest osteological difficulty presented by Archaeopteryx " and neither he nor Charles Darwin would accept this specimen as a genuine transition. Huxley also took delight in pointing out that the furcula was upside-down. Again, Dr. Haberlein negotiated the sale, this time to the British Natural History Museum. Its director, Sir Richard Owen, bought the specimen sight-unseen for 600 pounds (today, valued at two million); it is known as "the London specimen." German professor, Andreas Wagner, who had the opportunity to study this specimen, declared that it was nothing more than the reptile Compsognathus with feathers. He knew this chicken-sized dinosaur well, since he had discovered it and named it. 3. The third specimen at first named Archaeornis appeared 16 years later (1877) from the same quarry and was complete with the head and it had teeth which placed it nicely between the reptile and the bird. This time its sale was negotiated by Dr. Karl Haberlein's son, Ernst Haberlein, who demanded a stupendous price of 30,000 gold marks. National pride was at stake and the specimen finished in the Berlin Museum; it is referred to as the "Berlin specimen" and is the universal textbook exemplar. The early published engraving of this specimen included a furcula of the same shape and orientation as the London specimen, however, later photographs showed no sign of it. 4. Textbooks often speak about "many other examples" and by this they mean the remaining four specimens. The following is their description: A poorly preserved specimen discovered in 1956 and classified as an Archaeopteryx ; it is known as the Maxberg specimen and was in the hands of a private collector but has disappeared in recent years. A specimen discovered in 1855, displayed in the Teyer Museum and known as a pterosaur until 1970 when it was reclassified as an Archaeopteryx ; it is known as the Haarlem specimen. A specimen discovered in 1951, classified as a Compsognathus longipes then reclassified as an Archaeopteryx in 1973; it is known as the Eichstatt specimen. A specimen in another private collection classified as an Archaeopteryx in 1988 and referred to as the Solnhofen specimen. It should be emphasized that none of these four specimens show feather impressions, so-called fused clavicles (furcula or wish-bone) or any other avian characteristics; the only purpose for their being reclassified appears to be to swell the number of specimens. It is possible that Museum authorities were becoming concerned especially as two birdlike fossils named Protoavis texenis were found in 1983 with furcula and sternum but no feathers and, according to the geology, 75 Ma years before the Archaeopteryx . Certainly, questions were being asked and by some high-profile scientists from other disciplines and an International Conference was called at Eichstat, Germany, in 1984. 5. Dr. Lee Spetner of the Weizman Institute, Israel, working in cooperation with British astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle, long suspected that the London specimen was a fake and finally were able to examine the actual specimen at the British Museum. The date was December 1984. They were not allowed to touch the specimen, merely photograph it. No main-line science journal would publish their findings so they published a cut-down version in The British Journal of Photography . Later, in 1986, they published a full book giving all the documented details. Briefly, Hoyle and Spetner charged that the London specimen was actually that of a Compsognathus to which impressions of modern feathers and a "furcula" had been added. They suggested that the forgers had carved [or possibly masked off with wax and dissolved with acid] a shallow depression about the "wing" and "tail" areas, back-filled with a mixture of finely ground limestone and gum arabic then modern feathers pressed into this mixture. After setting, the feathers were stripped out leaving the two halves of the slab much as we find them today. Scanning electron microscope analysis of two very small samples was permitted, one taken in the wing area and a control sample taken beyond the fossil area. The control showed a clean crystalline structure as would be expected. The wing sample was amorphous suggesting that it was a mixture of fine particles and an organic i.e. likely gum arabic? Both analyses were confirmed by X-ray luminescence analysis but having come this close to proof of forgery, the Museum refused further tests. 6. Examination of the Berlin Specimen. None but the certified believer can expect to be permitted to examine the actual specimen, however, the published photographs taken over the years are almost as revealing. A popular engraving of this specimen was published in 1880 and it clearly had a furcula in the same location, of the same shape and the same orientation as that in the London specimen. However, Carl Vogt had photographed this specimen shortly after its discovery in 1877 and Professor C. H. Hurst photographed this same specimen in 1893. Both photographs are identical and there is no furcula. Hurst pointed out that the popular 1887 textbook illustration had bent primary quill feathers (some bent by 40 degrees!) and that these originate in the ulna or fore-arm whereas on the fossil those same quill feathers were straight and originate in the manus or "hand." Controversy arose in which Hurst further pointed out that not only did Professor Dames 1884 description of the fossil state that the primary quills were attached to the longest finger but that bent feathers would in any case be useless for flight. W. D. Pyecraft of the British Museum also defended the straight feathers saying that most modern birds have straight feathers and they do originate in the hand. Incredibly, every modern photograph of the Berlin specimen now show these quill feathers as bent and originating in the fore-arm. According to the published photographs the change from straight to bent feathers took place between 1893 and 1923. If indeed this was a forgery then the forger had no choice but to use straight quill feathers and correctly placed them originating from the manus. It seems that later, someone at the Berlin Museum mistakenly thought that quill feathers originated in the ulna and illustrated them that way. Since that time the fossil itself has somehow been modified so that the incorrect illustrated version persists even in modern photographic reproductions. 7. In summary so far, there are just two fossil representatives of the alleged transition from the reptile to the bird: the London and the Berlin specimens. Both have feather impressions, both originated from the same quarry and passed through the hands of the same Haberlein family who were paid enormous sums of money. It is only the London specimen that has the alleged furcula but that bears no resemblance to any bird's wishbone — it has been described as a "bent sausage" and is up-side-down. There is said to be other specimens; these consist of four produced by reclassifying other fossils but none of these have feather impression or furcular. By the late 1980's Museum's began a PR campaign: Dinosaurs were now declared to have been hot blooded thus avoiding a major problem of the transition; the 1993 film Jurassic Park had a nimble team of dinosaurs. Then, in the 1990's, China offered a new opportunity. 8. In the past decade or so the belief that the dinosaur is the bird's ancestor has indeed been maintained by the fossil search in NE China. The Early Cretaceous sedimentary layers of the Jehol Group of Northeastern China, which includes outcrops in the Liaoning Province, have provided a rich source of fossils including: A large diversity of organic material such as well preserved insect wings, feathers and fur from birds and mammals and an almost identical theropod to the Late Jurassic Compsognathus found in the Solnhofen quarries of Germany. Of course, the local Chinese especially the Liaoning quarries, are very much aware of the Western interest in fossils showing the evolutionary development of the bird from the reptile. Indeed, Feduccia described this quarry as a "fake-fossil factory." The discoveries have been as follows: 1995.Confuciusornis sanctus . This bird is one of several suggesting "flocks." It has a beak, no teeth, but feathers and wing claws i.e. a modern-type bird. Found in the Late Jurassic placed it at 140 Ma, however, this presented a serious challenge to the London and Berlin Archaeopteryx since these are of the same age and claimed to be transitions! The incredible solution has been to reclassify the geological stratum for Confuciusornis moving it forward to the Early Cretaceous thus making it 100 Ma. 1996. Sinosauropteryx prima. Discovered in the Liaoning quarries it is in every respect a Compsognathus like those at Solnhofen; it was optimistically named "First- Chinese-Winged-Reptile." The avian claim was based on a line of "proto-feathers" or dino-fuzz i.e. collagen fibre, running along the spine. It had a lung physiology similar to the present-day crocodile. 1999. Archaeoraptor liaoningensis sloan. This was the exclusive catch of the National Geographic magazine (November 1999) but within two months was found to be a fake consisting of two and possibly five separate fossils. The magazine issued a five-page, close-print-no pictures, explanation in their October 2000 issue. 2003. Microraptor gui. This was supposedly a four-winged dinosaur that used its wings for gliding. Of the six specimens found, five show apparent feathers and were bought from the same "fake-fossil factory" at Liaoning quarry. This raises serious doubts while the sixth specimen has no sign of feathers; the researchers admitted that some of the pieces of rock had been glued together improperly. 9. In 1991 an event occurred that, while not concerned with the alleged reptile to bird transition, is causing the supporters of evolution some even deeper concerns today. Mary Schweitzer, at that time a graduate student, discovered blood cells in a piece of non-lithified T.rex bone. She describes herself as "a total Christian" yet is firmly committed to the millions of years and has advanced among the ranks of her peers. In 2004 she discovered soft tissue inside mineralized T.rex bone and in 2005 discovered proteins. These organic inclusions cannot possibly have survived for millions or even thousands of years. Her discoveries have been published and similar evidences are being reported by others. All told, they offer the greatest challenge to evolution yet! 10. For the Creationist concerned about seeing God's hand in all these events there are two of significance: First, Heilman showed in 1926 that the Compsognathus has the closest anatomical structure to the birds including a forward facing pubis; How did Dr. Haberlein know this in 1861? Acts 15:18 "Known to God are all His works" indicating that while we have a free-will to love God, He has provided "evidences" for those who choose not to. Secondly, see the familiar passage in Romans 1:18-23. —o0o— Creation Moments, Inc. 1-800-422-4253. September 2008 www.creationmoments.com

The article appeared in The Discerner , the voice of Religion Analysis Service, Volume 26, Number 3, July-August-September 2006. Used by permission. In these days when we read or hear information relating to the age of the earth, the most likely number will be in billions of years. This does not fit a literal reading of the Bible. Some Christians reaction to insistence that the long ages are not valid is What difference does it make? It makes a difference when we consider that the Bible is God's written word, (I Peter 1:20,21) and God does not lie. The ideas of long ages, and dating techniques used to compute long ages, are inventions of mortal man and are not subject to rigorous scientific proof. The geology professor that taught the course in Nuclear Geology, in response to a request for proof for long ages, stated, "There is no proof. It's mostly speculation. But I choose to believe." Choosing to believe is not science, it's religion. (Ref. Alexander, Calvin, PhD, Univ. of MN., Jan. 5, 1982) What is taught in schools is that there is proof for long ages because we can calculate it. What is generally not known by teachers and students alike is that they have been given philosophy in place of facts. God and Time God exists outside of time. I AM Exodus 3:14, John 8:58 God is. The past, present and future in our time frame of existence is all the same to God. When did time begin? Gen. 1:1 In the beginning (of time), God created the heaven and the earth. What was there before Gen. 1:1? Only God, in three persons. Spiritual beings Where there is no physical space or matter, there is no need of time. God and the concept of time in Biblical terms: Psalm 90:4 A thousand years in God s sight are as yesterday. 2 Peter 3:8 ...one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Three Aspects of God God of creation God of revelation: He told us that He created, how He created, when He created, and why He Created. God of salvation: Our redemption was planned before He created. 2 Tim. 1:9 Calculating the Age of the Earth from the Bible From God's Word and its record of human history, the age of the earth can be calculated to a period of thousands of years. Time differences exist between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts, but both are less than 10,000 years. What does the record actually tell us? There are a number of opinions as to what the Scripture says. Authorities generally agree that the literal-day interpretation of Genesis not only is a "legitimate" interpretation of the text, but that it is the obvious view. This view is held by Dr. Davis Young, Dr. Pattle Pun and others even though they do not believe this interpretation. They disagree with this description of creation because it does not fit their "Scientific" view of the origin of the earth. The creation sequence as stated in Genesis is also questioned. Gap Theory To accommodate long ages, it was assumed by some that there were long periods of time between the specified steps of the creation account. Those who wish to accept the theoretical long ages of the earth as determined from radiometric dating assume that there were millions of years between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2. Day-Age Theory A similar view of the creation period considers each day as a geological age in which gradual changes in the physical structure were accompanied by gradual changes in the plant and animal life. Objections to the creation account given in Scripture are not scientific but philosophical. If the story of the "evolution" of the earth, as proposed by those who hold to the theory, were presented in the same format as the Biblical account of creation, would it be believed as a scientific explanation of the origin of the earth and life? (CRS Quarterly March 1979, p203 The Story of Evolution in Biblical Style , E. Theodore Agard and Charles D. Howe) A proper philosophical base is needed for the investigation of the world and the universe. The doctrine of creation provides that base, and the associated presuppositions are formed around that base. The created universe was expected to have: Design - intelligence Order - plan Purpose An alternate philosophical base - Universe not created - it evolved. Product of basic material (time and chance) No intelligence Irrational operation (why specific laws?) A Problem for Christians - Long Ages Basis for long ages The process of evolution needed long ages. Gradual changes that were to eventually produce new species needed time to accomplish the process. In spite of the fact that no intermediate fossil forms have ever been found, there was always hope that some would eventually be found. Age of rocks By assuming that the earth was old, geologists began assigning dates to rock strata. The deep layers of sedimentary rock are filled with fossil forms of plants, fish, amphibians and animals. Certain index fossils were used to provide age to rocks in areas where strata sequences were not well defined. From these early studies the sequence chart known as the geologic column was made. It is in a variety of forms found in many science textbooks. Dating of rocks and fossils The age of the earth is considered by many to be 4.5 billion years. This number appears in science textbooks and in science news articles, but few people are aware of how it was derived. Dating techniques for geological formations have been changing over the past several hundred years as new techniques are developed. Dating techniques Earlier dating was accomplished by such processes as measuring the accumulation of minerals and salts in the ocean, counting the annual deposits in the deltas at the mouths of rivers, measuring the erosion rate of waterfalls, measuring the accumulation of meteorite dust or measuring the decay of the earth's magnetic field. Most dates derived from these processes were in the range from several thousand to several hundred million years. The accuracy of the results depends heavily on the assumptions used. The same is true of the 4.5 billion year date. People in general are not aware of the assumptions used for these dates. It was the discovery of radiometric dating and its application to earth crystalline rock that resulted in a large increase in the assumed age of the earth. Not all rocks are dated by the same methods. The geologic column and the assumed ages of fossil bearing strata were derived before radiometric dating was developed. Sedimentary strata are not dated by their vertical sequence, their mineral content or their physical characteristics. They are primarily dated by fossil content. Index fossils, such as trilobites and dinosaurs, have been assigned to certain time periods based on evolutionary theory. Radiometric dating techniques are used on crystalline rocks such as granites and basalt. Small radioactive inclusions are found distributed within the rock. Radioactive decay is a natural process by which an unstable Parent isotope* decays into a stable Daughter isotope by a specific sequence of radioactive emissions. By measuring the amounts of the Parent and Daughter isotopes and knowing the decay rate, a series of calculations can provide a "radiometric age" for a rock sample. This may or may not be the true age of the rock. The assumptions are key in arriving at radiometric dates. Most assumptions are not proven or are not provable. The main assumptions of the testing methods for the uranium-lead or rubidium-strontium decay series are: The rock system must be closed. There must have been no gain or loss of either Parent or Daughter isotope during the life of the rock. Initial Daughter isotope can be determined accurately. The decay process is known and is constant. The measurement of the isotopes is accurate. There are several problems with these assumptions. It is doubtful that there are completely closed systems over long periods of time. Initial conditions can only be estimated. Decay rates are known for current conditions, but factors such as the change in the speed of light can have a direct effect on the decay rate. Measurement accuracies may depend on the skills of the operators. The sample may not be indicative of the whole rock formation. Potassium-argon dating of rocks had been common although there have been questions of its accuracy. Recent studies in its decay process by Dr. Edward Boudreaux has revealed that there are two decay rates for potassium, one much faster than the other.** By using the longer decay rate for making calculations, the over abundance of Daughter isotopes produces an extremely old age for the sample. *Isotopes are atoms of the same element having the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. ** Boudreaux, Edward, and Baxter, Eric, A computational model for nuclear Binding and isotope decay Energies, Common Sense Science, 2000 Long Ages in Astronomy? Distance to Stars Large distances to stars, galaxies and quasars and the size of the universe are used to indicate long ages. How is distance measured? There is no way to directly measure the distance to most stars and galaxies. Distance to a limited number of close stars has been measured by parallax, taking angular measurements at different times of the year and using trigonometry to calculate the distance. The determination of the billions of light years for distant stars and galaxies is based on two factors, light intensity or brightness and the red shift of light received from the galaxies. It was assumed that the red shift of light was a Doppler effect produced by the recession velocity of the galaxy or star in question. This was a reasonable assumption, and although it was questioned, no other mechanism was offered to explain the observed effect, until the last 20 years. The brightness, red shift relationship has been formulated into the "Hubble Law" which is not a law since it has never been verified. As larger telescopes have been built and more sophisticated recording devices have been designed, it has been possible to detect very faint stars and galaxies. The general assumption was that these faint objects were very far away, and because they generally exhibited greater red shift than the brighter galaxies, it was further assumed that they were moving away from us at very high speed. There are some basic problems with this concept. First, there is no justification for assuming that all faint galaxies are far away just because they are faint. Star density in a given galaxy does not have to be the same as other galaxies nor does galaxy size have to be similar to other galaxies. Galaxies appear to occur in pairs or in larger groups. The red shift of light from galaxy pairs is usually different, indicating from the Hubble relationship that they are moving at different velocities relative to the earth. However, over the years no apparent change in their relative positions has been observed. Red Shift If the red shift of light from the galaxies is not an indication of relative velocity, then some other explanation must be given. When a series of studies of Quasars (quasi-stellar objects) was started it was found that their red shifts were larger than the faint galaxies. They were first assumed to be even farther away than the galaxies, but as data were accumulated it became evident to some astronomers that the quasars were associated with galaxies and showed distinct violation of the red shift-distance relationship. Reports of these findings were not accepted by the astronomy journals since the implications of such data were contrary to the Big-Bang hypothesis. Astronomers were comfortable with the Big-Bang cosmology, and anyone upsetting it was not welcome in their midst. A large body of evidence exists showing that galaxies and quasars can violate the red shift-distance relationship. Quasars are not the most distant objects in the universe, but are associated in space with relatively nearby galaxies. (Arp) Documentation of the red shift problem is found in Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies and Seeing Red by author and astronomer Dr. Halton Arp. Quasars enormous red shifts are not from Doppler effects of an expanding universe. Red shifts are intrinsic properties of the quasars and galaxies related to their magnetic field strength . (Ref. Bergman, David, Origin of the Redshift, Common Sense Science, 2001) Quasars and galaxies have origins different from the standard Big Bang model of the universe. Quasars and small galaxies appear to be generated from large galaxies. (Not proven) A static universe, one that is neither contracting nor expanding, could be a reality. This is not a popular concept with most astronomers and astrophysicists. We don't know how far away most of the stars and galaxies are or how they are changing, but evidence is quite clear, God didn't use the Big Bang to create the universe. Conclusions logically drawn from factual data are no more valid than the assumptions on which they are based British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made the following statement. "I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall hangs over the Big Bang theory. When a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers." The Big Bang Under Attack , Science Digest, V. 92 May 1984 p. 84 Factors Supporting a Young Universe Supernova remnants should number in the thousands if the universe is old, but there are only 205 detected. This is 65 less than expected by astronomers even assuming the universe is 7,000 years old. (Ref. Davies, Keith, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Creationism, pp. 175-182, 1994) Deep Space Galaxies appear much the same as other galaxies, indicating that galaxies have not evolved but were created much as we see them today. (Ref. Goldsmith, D., Digging deeply in galaxies pasts, Science 271, 1996) Red dwarfs are assumed to be faint old stars that should number in the thousands if the universe is billions of years old. However, astronomers have reluctantly admitted that the limited number found fits a biblically young universe of 10,000 years or less. (Ref. Davies, Keith, Interview in 'This Week in Bible Prophecy' No. 191) Christians Reaction to Long Ages Many Christian scholars began to accommodate long ages into their interpretation of Genesis. The long age ideas did not initially find acceptance in most churches. But as some seminaries began teaching future pastors the new ideas, the long age concepts began to invade the churches. Bible commentaries and reference Bibles carried the message of long ages. The Scofield Reference Edition , because of its wide distribution and support of long ages, was instrumental in leading people into the mindset of long ages. While many remained true to the literal interpretation of Scripture, large numbers of Christians accepted the idea of long ages without understanding the full implication of their action. The accuracy of the Genesis record was being questioned, and more liberal interpretations were being made in other portions of Scripture. "Creation not only serves as a good basis for science, but for all of life. It brings meaning to the totality of existence." (Chittick) ------------------------------------------- Robert Helfinstine is a retired professional electrical engineer having spent 40 years working for Honeywell in the field of control systems for aircraft, spacecraft and missiles. He worked for two years in Europe, part of the time in Germany and part in Sweden. Robert has been on the board of directors of the Twin Cities Creation Science Association since 1976 serving as secretary, treasurer and president. In 2003 he was granted the title of president emeritus . His main area of study in the creation science field was post-flood catastrophes and their correlation with Scripture. He has also participated in excavation activities for dinosaur and human tracks in Texas and dinosaur bones in Wyoming. The book Texas Tracks and Artifacts was written to document some of the work done in Texas. In 1996 Robert went to Ukraine to teach a 50-hour course in Bible-Science Relationships at Zaporozhye Bible College, a topic that was well received by the students. Beginning in his high school years he has been active in church and church related activities. He has served as Sunday School superintendent, treasurer, trustee and deacon as well as being a Bible teacher. Robert is also a registered Tree Farmer. With a ready supply of ash, birch and oak wood for lumber, he enjoys making furniture and other wood products.