Is Jupiter Still A Star?

[AV1611VET]

One member here suggested changing a thread to this title, and I liked his suggestion; and since it isn't my thread, and I can't change the title, I'll make my own thread.

Is Jupiter still a star?

According to the Bible, yes it is.

Jude 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

But science says otherwise, calling Jupiter a "planet."

So let's see if we can reconcile this conundrum, shall we? before someone says Jude didn't know what he was talking about?

I submit we modify Linnaeus' classification and apply it to this problem thusly:

Family: Wandering Star
Genus: Planet
Species: Jupiter

And bingo! No more conundrum!

Jupiter is both a wandering star and a planet!

Discuss.

 

[Strathos]

It's not a star, in the English definition of the word.

The word "planet" in English comes from the term asteres planetai, which is the very same term used in Jude 13 that you quoted.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

One member here suggested changing a thread to this title, and I liked his suggestion; and since it isn't my thread, and I can't change the title, I'll make my own thread.

Is Jupiter still a star?

According to the Bible, yes it is.

Jude 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

But science says otherwise, calling Jupiter a "planet."

So let's see if we can reconcile this conundrum, shall we? before someone says Jude didn't know what he was talking about?

I submit we modify Linnaeus' classification and apply it to this problem thusly:

Family: Wandering Star
Genus: Planet
Species: Jupiter

And bingo! No more conundrum!

Jupiter is both a wandering star and a planet!

Discuss.

IMHO....Scripture only identifies celestial bodies as stars besides the earth and the moon. The designation of "planets" are not identified thus left out of the creation story. I think for a good reason. Though the "light" at night is known as the moon, it is illuminated by the sun. So as we know, all other lights in the sky are either "other suns" or planets that are illuminated by our sun or other sun's, known to us as stars. Now all those unilluminated spheres that have been discovered in the past few decades,were suppose to be kept in the dark.. Until the time was right to reveal them. For a reason, God found all other created celestial bodies as "not important". Be blessed.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not a star, in the English definition of the word.

Not today, no.

Science is at odds with Biblical terminology.

According to Wikipedia:

A star is an astronomical object consisting of a luminous spheroid of plasma held together by its own gravity.

The Bible, of course, says differently though.

Much like the Bible calls a "fetus" a "child".

The word "planet" in English comes from the term asteres planetai, which is the very same term used in Jude 13 that you quoted.

Inasmuch as the King James writers didn't use that word, preferring to use "wandering stars" instead, I'm going to have to conclude that "wandering stars" include the planets as well.

Here's another suggestion:

Family: Wandering Star
Genus: Asteroid
Species: Wormwood

Revelation 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;
Revelation 8:11 And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.

And yet another:

Family: Wandering Star
Genus: Comet
Species: Hale-Bopp

 

[JackRT]

IIRC the concept of "planet" rather than "star" originated with the Greek astronomer Ptolemy on the second century. He developed a geocentric model of the solar system in which the planets orbited the earth. That model was readily adopted by the early Christian church and lasted for the next 1400 years.

 

[AV1611VET]

IIRC the concept of "planet" rather than "star" originated with the Greek astronomer Ptolemy on the second century. He developed a geocentric model of the solar system in which the planets orbited the earth. That model was readily adopted by the early Christian church and lasted for the next 1400 years.

Well someone had to goof it up!

That's what happens when you play around with Biblical terminology.

Someone takes it too far, and then conundrums arise.

Then it usually takes a KJVO to sort things out and get them back on track.

 

[ewq1938]

One member here suggested changing a thread to this title, and I liked his suggestion; and since it isn't my thread, and I can't change the title, I'll make my own thread.

Is Jupiter still a star?

According to the Bible, yes it is.

Jude 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

But science says otherwise, calling Jupiter a "planet."

That verse doesn't even mention Jupiter. It's speaking of fallen angels and their fate.

 

[public hermit]

Is Jupiter still a star?

According to the Bible, yes it is.

Jude 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

But science says otherwise, calling Jupiter a "planet."

Science doesn't call it otherwise. Science calls it exactly what the bible does, i.e. "a wanderer" (planetai). If scientific terminology omits the Greek word for "star" (as it is used in Jude) what is proven? Nothing.

You have taken a metaphor for sinful, rebellious humanity (i.e. roaming stars) and turned it into a supporting premise of a more literal interpretation of...what? Genesis? Abortion?

The Bible, of course, says differently though.

Much like the Bible calls a "fetus" a "child".

I don't know. The connections seem kind of loose. I don't know that Jude's metaphor supports a literal interpretation, which in turn could be used to support the identification of "kind" and "species," which could conclude in an argument against abortion. It's just a strange approach. You could probably argue against abortion without a 6-day creation, a metaphysic that identifies "kind" and "species," or Jude's metaphor. You seem to be taking the long way around the mulberry tree.

 

[Strathos]

KJVO makes as little sense to me as flat earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

That verse doesn't even mention Jupiter. It's speaking of fallen angels and their fate.

The comparison is to the planets (along with asteroids, comets, and maybe even meteors).

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to be taking the long way around the mulberry tree.

Someone in another thread put the idea in my head, and I'm running with it.

I like it, actually.

 

[AV1611VET]

KJVO makes as little sense to me as flat earth.

I understand.

 

[public hermit]

Someone in another thread put the idea in my head, and I'm running with it.

I like it, actually.

You never know. Maybe it will pan out?

 

[ewq1938]

The comparison is to the planets (along with asteroids, comets, and maybe even meteors).

Compare to this:

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

I think the reference to stars in verse 13 comes from the earlier mention of fallen angels, angels often being called stars in scripture and the wandering a reference that the angels left their first estate/habitation.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Inasmuch as the King James writers didn't use that word, preferring to use "wandering stars" instead, I'm going to have to conclude that "wandering stars" include the planets as well.

How stupid were those guys? The original greek says ἀστέρες (stars) πλανῆται (wandering) and those dimwits translate it as "wandering stars". Why didn't they just say planets? I'm sure it has nothing to do with KJV being written in 1611 and the word "planet" not being used with its current meaning in English until 1630.

 

[AV1611VET]

Compare to this:

Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

I think the reference to stars in verse 13 comes from the earlier mention of fallen angels, angels often being called stars in scripture and the wandering a reference that the angels left their first estate/habitation.

The angels in vs 6 is a reference to the angels that came to earth and married our women, producing the Nephilim.

Those angels were locked up, and are still locked up today.

We say there are two types of angels: fallen and unfallen.

Of the fallen, there are two types: chained and unchained.

 

[AV1611VET]

How stupid were those guys? The original greek says ἀστέρες (stars) πλανῆται (wandering) and those dimwits translate it as "wandering stars". Why didn't they just say planets? I'm sure it has nothing to do with KJV being written in 1611 and the word "planet" not being used with its current meaning in English until 1630.

I'm proposing that Jupiter is both a "wandering star" per the Bible, and a "planet" per science.

It's a win-win situation.

 

[Strathos]

It's being used as an analogy. Just as the planets seem to wander around the sky very quickly (unlike the stars), those angels wandered from God's law. The Bible is full of metaphorical language like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's being used as an analogy. Just as the planets seem to wander around the sky very quickly (unlike the stars), those angels wandered from God's law. The Bible is full of metaphorical language like that.

I get the analogy.

But why does it have to just be an analogy? why can't it be both?

Like the parables? real events that happened, but told with a spiritual message in mind.

 

[public hermit]

why can't it be both?

Why does it have to be both. Creation/scripture is sacramental-revealing God without having to be God. Metaphors are good enough. The problem with literalism is that it surreptitiously takes the place of God, creating two perfect entities, God and the scriptures. Lol! That can't be right, can it?