The new horoscope change of 2011 has started to divide the astrological community more than ever before. While adding a new star sign can be quite a significant change it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s something bad. Quite on the contrary, there are many who consider the change to be excellent and give perfectly good arguments to support their claims.
There are more or less two main beliefs that would condemn the idea of adding the new constellation to the list of the 12 existing zodiac signs. One of them has to do with the name of the constellation itself and certain interpretations that some people would connect to it.
The name of the constellation is Ophiuchus which means “serpent holder”. Now, when we think of the story of the Garden of Eden, it is clear why some people would fear this horoscope change from the start. The connections that can be made between the constellation and the symbol of the Devil are quite obvious. Also, some are wary because of the number of the new constellation (13). Superstitions would suggest that the number is connected to evil and bad luck.
Now, there are a few things that are wrong regarding this entire interpretation. First of all, without going into details regarding the Garden of Eden story, we can safely say that there are many cultures and myths where the serpent is a symbol of knowledge and wisdom.
From this point of view, the “rebirth” of the Serpent Holder as a new zodiac sign would almost be like a metaphor stating that we are entering an age of knowledge and light. This suggests that the horoscope change is a very good idea from a symbolic point of view. Moreover, in numerology the number 13 is reduced to a 4 (3 + 1 = 4) which symbolizes grounding. Attributing the number to bad luck is simply a superstition that has no root in reality.
The second idea that would get in the way of the zodiac sign change is rooted in commodity. Some people see astrology as a kind of fixed science and would not welcome change even if it is for the sake of accuracy. They would argue that the system has worked perfectly for thousands of years and we have no right to change it now. Also, they consider that the mathematical precision that connects the star signs to the number of months in a year would be broken.
But the horoscope change has nothing to do with the calendar. New horoscope signs do not have to influence the way the months are arranged in a year just as the old ones never actually influenced them at all. Despite the fact that there were 12 months and 12 star signs, they never actually coincided so adding a new sign would not make a difference.
As for the first argument, astrology was never created as a religious dogma. Most astrologists pride themselves with the fact that their work is scientific and change should always be welcome in science, when it is needed. In any way, it is clear that this horoscope change is not only a positive new idea that can revolutionize astrology, but it also marks a refreshing new beginning that should be allowed to bring a new wave of enthusiasm to all those who are interested in the science of the stars.
It is not always clear why some things happen at a certain point in time, but it is clear that everything happens for a reason. Therefore, the sign of the serpent holder is not likely to be a coincidence and its appearance in this day and age could be a real sign of hope for the entire world. No matter what some skeptics might say, it is clear that this horoscope change is beneficial.