The star and the night of light

[laronius]

For those more scientific minded, is there a scientific explanation for the new star at Jesus' birth and the night without darkness in the new world originating from the same phenomenon? Or were there likely two different sources?

[Traveler]

34 minutes ago, laronius said:

For those more scientific minded, is there a scientific explanation for the new star at Jesus' birth and the night without darkness in the new world originating from the same phenomenon? Or were there likely two different sources?

It has long been my theory that the star of Bethlehem was not really a “new” star but an old star that went supernova that was around 600 light years from earth.  As such the star would be bright enough to be visible during the day and would be unusually bright at night.  The reason that I place the star around 600 light years from earth is that at that distance it is likely that there would be enough light energy reaching the earth to cause the ozone to become fluorescent.   During the daytime there would not be that much difference except that there would be no shadows.  At night it would be exactly as recorded in the Book of Mormon.  The sun would be observed to set but there would still be light.  Since the entire ozone would be fluorescent there would be no visible source and no shadows.

I also speculate that such a very bright star will also be a sign when the Messiah returns (Matt 24).  But this time the super nova would be much closer to earth – within 400 light years.  This could have enough energy to strip away the earth’s atmosphere and cause the entire surface to burn.  All life that was not caught up (changed) by Christ would end and the earth would enter a new phase.  The life that remained would be in harmony with Christ (1,000 years of peace) such that there would be no predators.  A lion would not harm a lamb and so on.  If this is the case the exact time of the return of the Messiah is locked in and established – we are just waiting for the energy traveling at the speed of light to reach or earth.  Only those saved by divine providence will survive.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

For those more scientific minded, is there a scientific explanation for the new star at Jesus' birth and the night without darkness in the new world originating from the same phenomenon? Or were there likely two different sources?

Through the centuries, all sorts of scientific and pseudoscientific explanations have been attempted for the new star at Christ's birth. None of them has proven particularly convincing. The ancients knew of comets, so surely a comet would be called such and not by the more generic term "star". Plus, comets were typically seen as evil omens, not heralds of Godly doings.

But a "new star", bright enough to be noticed by most people (with decent eyesight), could have been the result of any number of events, such as a distant supernova or even the "unveiling" of a nearby asteroid whose albedo suddenly increased and remained easily visible until "reveiled".

The Nephite night of brightness is not so easily hand-waved away. Note that during the day, even if the sun is hidden behind a cloud or a hill or something, it's still very bright outside. The sky itself is a bright azure color that lights the world for us, as much as or perhaps in some cases moreso than the immediate brightness of the sun. I could imagine some sort of atmospheric interplay, something perhaps akin to the aurora borealis, that kept the sky bright even after sundown. Pure speculation, of course. No scriptural account talks of a "second sun" or anything like that, so the bright sky idea appeals to me.

[Carborendum]

I will never understand why it is so important to explain a Divine event via some naturalistic cause.

Why can't it simply be a miraculous event?

Edited December 26, 2024 by Carborendum

[Vort]

37 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I will never understand why it is so important to attribute a Divine event to some naturalistic cause.

Why can't it simply be a miraculous event?

Because unbelievers seek to establish that "miracles" are just normal (if rare) occurrences, while believers seek to establish that there's a clear way God might accomplish some miraculous thing, and therefore it's reasonable to believe. Latter-day Saints are especially interested, because we believe God to be a God of Laws, a Being that works within the laws that He has established (or perhaps that are eternally self-existent, as He, and we, and the elements themselves are -- depends on the Latter-day Saint what the particular belief trying to be justified is).

Somehow, finding a possible non-supernatural explanation makes things more believable. Or something. Which is not unreasonable; just think of how far scientific endeavors would have gotten had every question been answered, "Because that's the way God created things." It's a true answer of absolutely zero explanatory value.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

...just think of how far scientific endeavors would have gotten had every question been answered, "Because that's the way God created things." It's a true answer of absolutely zero explanatory value.

This level of curiosity is perfectly acceptable.  It's a "I wonder how God did..."  And it shows a level of humility that is required for further light and knowledge.

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Somehow, finding a possible non-supernatural explanation makes things more believable. Or something.

This is what I believe to be the more common motivation. What are we after?  Satisfaction of our curiosity?  Or vindication for our faith?

2 hours ago, Vort said:

 Latter-day Saints are especially interested, because we believe God to be a God of Laws, a Being that works within the laws that He has established.

And here is where pride comes in.  This line of thinking has grabbed many of my friends' thought processes.  And these specific friends who are all in STEM fields believe with much confidence that they've found a way to explain various miracles.  Others simply choose to believe that some miracles were simply metaphors and were never real.  Why?  Because they can't figure out how to explain it.

While they consider themselves faithful members of the Church (I agree) they are prioritizing their intellect (and the ability to explain miracles) over the belief in an all-powerful Heavenly Father who comprehends things which man cannot comprehend.

This is a dangerous pattern.

Edited December 26, 2024 by Carborendum

[laronius]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I will never understand why it is so important to explain a Divine event via some naturalistic cause.

Why can't it simply be a miraculous event?

What we call miracles are really just unexplained scientific events. As @Vortpointed out God is a God of laws and He perfectly uses those laws to bring about His purposes. This is how we can say all things bear witness there is a God because they are His works. So while some people may have different motives for seeking answers I think doing so can strengthen one's testimony if approached correctly. Of course being fine with not knowing when answers aren't readily available is important as well.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I will never understand why it is so important to explain a Divine event via some naturalistic cause.

Why can't it simply be a miraculous event?

It depends on how one understand G-d and his works.  I believe that the more we become familiar with G-d and get to know Him the more we will understand Him and His works and the more it will all make sense (logical sense) to us.  Our scriptures tell us that G-d is a G-d of light and truth.  That the glory of G-d is intelligence or the light of truth.

We are also told that all things testify of Christ.  I personally do not connect with the concepts and doctrines that G-d is unknowable and that it is impossible to know of the “mysteries” of G-d.

Why do you think that knowing how something is done negates the possibility that G-d is involved?

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Why do you think that knowing how something is done negates the possibility that G-d is involved?

It doesn't have to.  But this mentality has played out too many times to believe it is a harmless thing.

[DurangoUT01]

This book gives a pretty compelling argument for the day/night/ day with no darkness.  Worth the read.  Better still it’s on a free pdf.  (Sorry can’t get it to let me post the link)

Calendars and Chronology of the Book of Mormon

Jerry D. Grover, Jr.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 19 by DurangoUT01