Every year around Christmas time, we are treated to yet another (often just a repeat of previous “findings”) naturalistic explanation of the biblical “star of Bethlehem.” It seems to be a foregone conclusion of these types of writings that if an astronomical explanation for the star was to be found, the entire birth narrative—and ultimately the Gospel itself—could be finally dismissed as a myth. The writers of these articles never seem to catch the irony of using modern scientific methods to rescue a certain historical fact (like the appearance of the star) reported in the Gospels in order to prove another part wrong (like the virgin birth). One would think it would be more consistent to dismiss the whole thing as myth and be done with it. But rationalists are seldom so rational.

Even if it were possible to conclusively prove that the star was something of a “natural occurrence,” this would still not prove the Gospel reporter—Matthew in this case—wrong. God created the heavens and the earth and “the stars also” (Gen. 1:16) and commanded that they are to “be for signs and for seasons and for days and years” (1:14). Just because the appearance of a star follows some sort of regular interval or can be scientifically located in the night sky does not somehow negate God’s purpose for it; God created it and can use it as He pleases. In fact, when properly understood, nothing that happens in heaven or on earth is a miracle per se. What we refer to as “miracles” are really nothing more than God doing things differently than He has in the past, or does regularly…

Continue reading:

Continue Reading on christianreader.com