Talk:Mazzaroth

Massive changes
This article was recently totally overhauled by a user (editing both anonymously and logged in) who has made POV edits at another article. It should probably be reviewed for accuracy and neutrality by other editors. —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the lead and Bible usage sections. I'm not sure if the other two sections even belong here: they look as if (rewritten) they'd find a home in an article on Jewish astronomy. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I note, looking through the history, that the complete absence of references in these two sections has been challenged for at least a month. They are also off-topic, which gives two good reasons for deleting them. I've placed the deleted material in the table below, just in case editors on other articles want to use a rewritten form of this material. -- 09:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Interpretations
Whether 'mazzaroth' refers to the constellations of the zodiac and whether these constellations have a Biblical meaning cannot be proved. However, it can be demonstrated that a significant minority view is that the stars do have a Biblical meaning. The number of books published on this topic indicate it is a significant minority view: E. W. Bullinger ("The Witness of the Stars"), Joseph Seiss ("The Gospel in the Stars"), D. James Kennedy ("The Real Meaning of the Zodiac"), Chuck Missler ("Signs in the Heavens"), Marilyn Hickey ("Signs in the Heaven"), Henry M. Morris ("Many Infallible Proofs") and William M. Branham ("The Future Home") present this view, along with books by Kenneth C. Fleming ("God's Voice in the Stars"), Tim Warner ("Mystery of the Mazzaroth"), William D. Banks ("The Heavens Declare"), Timothy J. Adams ("Pattern of the Heavens") and E. Raymond Capt ("The Glory of the Stars").

The article cannot claim that any of these interpretations are correct but it should include comments that give the reader an understanding that the subject has been discussed by Christian authors. Sources that dispute whether the constellations have a Biblical meaning could be included. Rev107 (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of the commentary you're adding is uncited, all of it is off-topic, as it's not referring to the Mazzaroth, but to how some fringe scholars think the zodiac should be interpreted under Christianity. Leave it out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Obviously we disagree. The purpose of this Talk page is to try to resolve situations such as this. The number of books published on the Biblical meaning of the mazzaroth indicate it should be seen as a significant minority view, not fringe.  This is not an article about the zodiac or constellations - it is about the significance of a Biblical word.  The ways in which that word are interpreted and incorporated into Christian theology should be considered, especially when those different meanings have been discussed in Christian literature. We would not consider leaving out a discussion of the different views of a word such as "angel". The section "Interpretation" can be reworded but I do not agree it should be left out. Rev107 (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's review:

1. According to Genesis, in the beginning God said that the sun, moon and stars are for "signs": And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, (or appointed times) and for days and years (Genesis 1:14, ESV)

We've gone off-topic right there. This isn't about the word "Mazzaroth" anymore, indeed, the only use of the word is in the name of a book referenced. Simply talking about the zodiac in a religious context is not enough to justify inclusion. The work cited might be suitable to reference, but this isn't, even before you get to WP:NOTABILITY issues

3. Joseph Seiss, a Lutheran pastor, authored a book called "The Gospel of the Stars" in which he explains how the stars demonstrate the truth of God's "one plan and purpose of redemption for fallen man."

Again, no indication that he connects any of this with the term "Mazzaroth", so likely off-topic, even before we get to notability issues.

4. Ken Fleming, a teacher at the Iowa Emmaus Bible College, has proposed that God created the stars and named the constellations long before demonic forces corrupted the meanings of the stars and enslaved people with superstitious horoscope addiction. He presents the story of human redemption through Christ as pictured in the heavens.

Again, no connection is made to the word Mazzaroth.

WP:COATRACK issues apply to all of these, even before we get to the notability issues - there isn't the slightest indication any of these people's opinions have caught on in the least, or that they're believed by anyone but a tiny minority of, say, Biblical scholars. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to me there are two issues here: First, should there be a section in the article presenting the minority view that the constellations of the Mazzaroth/zodiac have a spiritual meaning that pertains to Jesus Christ. The second issue is about how such a section should be worded.  I support the inclusion of a section on interpretation but I am open to how it should be worded.
 * Your argument regarding the first issue is that a section on interpretation should not be included because it is only believed by a tiny minority. I have given a list of nine books (details available on Amazon) whose Christian authors all base their ideas on Job's reference to the Mazzaroth.  Therefore I think it should be included on the basis of  WP:Alternative


 * Mainstream Christianity accepts that stars in the Bible can have spiritual significance (most notably the star of Bethlehem, and the morning star). Whilst the “Gospel in the stars” teaching is a minority view (with several variations) my impression is that the majority of Christians do not categorically deny it, but rather are either sceptical or undecided.  The article needs to reflect this ongoing stream of discussion using a neutral tone to present it as a significant minority view.  Rev107 (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But how, praytell, are the examples you want in the article relevant to an article on the subject of an ill-defined word? Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article should include not only how the word has been defined but how the concept of the Mazzaroth is understood in the context of Christianity. Any Biblical word is first defined and then the applications of the concept by different religious groups is discussed. See Angel. Compare the article on another obscure Biblical word: Nephilim. Rev107 (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. How do those examples relate to the concept of Mazzaroth? And, if they do, isn't it undue weight to emphasize tiny fringe views, when the mainstream Judaic view isn't even mentioned? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * All of the examples are authors who are talking specifically about the Mazzaroth. It seems this needs to be made clearer in the article.  The undue weight issue is not addressed by eliminating all mention of a minority view.  A source that attempts to refute the "Gospel in the Stars" interpretation of the Mazzaroth is Charles Strohmer's "America's Fascination with Astrology". Strohmer's comment in "Christian Research Journal" (1999) could serve as a summary of the Gospel in the Stars view: Since the 1980s, an increasing number of Christian ministers, authors, and apologists have been teaching that the signs of the zodiac and the names of certain stars once carried a nonoccult meaning to the Hebrew patriarchs and ancient Israel. Allegedly, this meaning was conveyed in the story of Israel’s Messiah-Redeemer, which today Christians know as the gospel of Jesus Christ.Rev107 (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's deal with the simplest point first - do you agree that (1) above is original research? 19:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Pratt's primary views are hardly original - they are based on at least three previous published sources (Rolleston, Seiss & Bullinger) acknowledged in his notes. He is only one of the "increasing number of Christian ministers, authors, and apologists" recognized by Strohmer (above). However, as Pratt has only been published in the LDS magazine "Meridian" (2005) - as far as I know - other sources may be preferable for the article. Rev107 (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be 2, not 1. One at a time, please. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about this? "According to Genesis, in the beginning God said that the sun, moon and stars are for "signs": And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, (or appointed times) and for days and years (Genesis 1:14, ESV)"


 * If you are concerned about the words "appointed times", those words are quoted directly from the footnote to Genesis 1:14 in the English Standard Version. The same verse is quoted by most of the authors I have listed in my first comment so the "signs" view of Genesis 1:14 can be referenced to some of those sources, and even Strohmer's criticsm of the "Gospel in the Stars" interpretation because he also mentions it.


 * As you are discussing sources I assume you accept that a section on the interpretation of the Mazzaroth/zodiac can be included in the article. Rev107 (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion
I was asked to comment on the dispute, but I am a bit confused as to what is actually being argued. The article seems to be about a word, yet the dispute seems to be about whether certain viewpoints on astrology should be included. Multiple interpretations of the word would potentially be worth including, but it doesn't seem to me that that is what is being argued about. Please clarify. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. The Biblical word "Mazzaroth" is frequently understood to be the constellations of the zodiac (as stated in the article).  Above I have listed 12 Christian sources (including 7 people with WP articles about them) who present the view that the constellations of the zodiac represent the life and ministry of Jesus Christ (often referred to as the "Gospel in the stars").  These sources distinguish this interpretation from astrology and relate it to Biblical references that the stars can have a Biblical meaning ("signs").  This is different from the astrological view that the stars influence human activity.
 * The "Gospel in the stars" interpretation of the Mazzaroth was deleted from the article on the basis that it is "fringe". I have argued that it is a significant minority view and a subject that has generated considerable discussion among Christians, and therefore warrants inclusion.   Rev107 (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I can explain. You see, there has been a recent development in world history where a very vocal and hyperactive, yet miniscule, minority of commentators have decided that anything to do with Christianity, a world religion practised by hundreds of millions, is now to be declared officially a "FRINGE".  These few commentators are causing themselves massive anguish and pain in their own lives, by trying to convince themselves and the rest of the world that their bigotry is legitimate.  This would all be very entertaining as usual, but what makes wikipedia especially entertaining is that this 1% minority of bigots who hate what their neighbor believes and cannot stand human life in general, have got such a strangle hold on the adminship of this particular website, that now we all know where to come when we want to spy on their public stupidity for laughs... Wikipedia! 71.246.145.216 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that, for example, the view that the zodiac is a corrupted form of God's ministry of salvation (including Jesus) is a mainstream Christian belief? No, it's fringe in Christianity. Things that aren't fringe Christian subjects: Book of Jeremiah, Cleansing of the Temple, Saul of Tarsus (as described in the Acts of the Apostles), the virgin birth of Christ, and you could probably argue for a few major extra-Biblical Christian legends or ideas, like the Rapture as being presented as a mainstream Christian belief in many sects, albeit with also covering the Biblical issues with it brought up by other Christians.
 * But being ostensibly "Christian" does not make something mainstream Christian. There are fringe Christian beliefs. Prosperity Gospel, Snake handling, the content to be added to this article.
 * And, even then, if in an appropriately framed article on Christian astrology, I wouldn't necessarily object, although I think you'd have trouble finding sufficient sources to put it in context. The problem is that this article is being used as a coatrack, to hang an unrelated subject on that would be much harder to write, and have to be much more appropriately framed, were it not forced in where it doesn't belong. You may as well throw in the cosmology from the Book of Enoch and claim it's a mainstream Judaic view (which it hasn't been for millenia, at best). Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You ought to be careful of trying to assert what Christian belief you claim is the "mainstream" when the reality is that serious divisions took place in Christian thought at Chalcedon in the 6th century, and again with the Great Schism in the 11th century not to mention the Protestant Reformation and many smaller splinters. All of them claiming themselves to be the "mainstream" (and in some countries they actually are the mainstream in society). "Fringe" is basically the same argument they have been using since the Spanish Inquisition. 71.246.145.216 (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, let me rephrase... I am trying to determine why this article (which is apparently about the meaning of a word) would delve into any theology. The deleted material does indeed appear to be off-topic for this article as the article is currently framed.  Being fringe or not doesn't really even matter in that respect - it is off-topic either way.
 * And now some advice... There are few possibilities to fix this - a stand-alone article, reframing this article, or incorporation into a different, more directly relevant article(s).  It seems plausible that a Christian views on astrology ala Jewish views on astrology is possible, or if you prefer Christian interpretation of the zodiac or whatever.  Any such article would have to make it clear that such theories are not widely believed.  Potentially, a section in zodiac or astrology could cover such belief - although without any knowledge of these things, I cannot say such a section woudl be justified on weight.  If the material is put elsewhere, perhaps a "see also" or brief summary+link would be appropriate.
 * The alternative is to reframe this article to include a commentary/interpretations section. That might actually be the hardest way to do it though, as I am not sure there is much mainstream commentary on it.  Matthew Henry, for example, does not mention anything about stars in his commentary on Job 38.  Most likely, the mainstream view is quite simply that it has no special theological meaning, and is just used in the same fashion as all the other questions - to show God, not Job is in control.  Thus, it may be difficult to give much information about the alternate theories even if a commentary/interpretations section is added.
 * So, I would say if the goal is to cover these theories in depth, a stand-alone article will be needed. If the goal is to improve this article, a commentary section may or may not be a good idea, but it is doubtful that the deleted material would be a significant portion of any such section.  At most, these ideas would probably warrant a couple sentences here, and perhaps warrent no mention other than a "See also" link even if a commentary section is added. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So it turns out the article on Christian views on astrology does exist, it was simply titled "Christianity and astrology" - now renamed. I would suggest that is the best place to cover these zodiac-Christ haramony attempts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You have missed my point. What your words suggest is that you feel free to divine what you think the "mainstream view" is on behalf of all branches of Christianity, when you could not have the authority to do so, and very unlikely the knowledge to do so, and among these branches there is no "mainstream", and none that can dictate what is "fringe". Can you see this? 71.246.145.216 (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * List of Christian denominations by number of members. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Something is "mainstream" if it is viewed that way by the vast majority. This is exactly what policy calls for: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence."  You also missed my main point - It is also completely irrelevant what view is "mainstream" as views about astrology are (mostly) off-topic to this article regardless. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your input T B though I am left wondering why an article on the Biblical word "Mazzaroth" must be limited to only the translation of the word when other articles on Biblical words include discussions of the various theological implications of the concept (see Nephilim, Cherub, Alpha and Omega), Logos).. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev107 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, I said "If the goal is to improve this article, a commentary section may or may not be a good idea". I certainly didn't say it "must" not exist, but said there doesn't appear to be much commentary on "Mazzaroth" as it relates to theological concepts (in contrast to say "alpha and omega" on which much is written).  Rather, it appears that the deleted material (for example) is about an idea based on interpretations of various passages, not simply this one word.  Thus, any theological section would (likely) be brief and not cover the deleted material to any significant degree.  Thus, if the goal is to include that material, the Christian views on astrology article is the best option. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

DRA
The Douay–Rheims Bible is listed, but content related to it or its context is lacking.

could someone clarify that please? Alohakai (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)