I missed the question about the stars. Sometimes, though, in the middle of these discussions with more than a few participants firing questions and comments, things get missed.
The evidence seems to indicate that your definition of star is adequate.
How do you reconcile the physical evidence (all of which is inferential rather than direct) with the clear, simple, biblical language that speaks of stars "singing" and "falling to earth". The writers of the Bible had a very different image of stars to the scientific image of stars that has become accepted over the last 200 years. They appear to be quite small and close, probably a few-thousand miles up in the air at most. "Singing" is a clear indication of spiritual lifelike properties but the ancients would have been unaware that the sound of singing doesn't carry through vacuum; they appear to be describing might-spirits or angels, plausible for those who have no cosmology in the modern sense. Why don't you reject the modern astronomical models on the grounds of clear biblical authority? From all appearances you reject the idea that evolution can be reconciled with scripture. How is modern astronomy, with its ridiculous stories of trillions of galaxies each with billions of suns, (99.9999999999999999999% of which cannot be seen without powerful instruments, and whose existence is largely inferred from the fact that distant galaxies look the same as close ones, except smaller because they are further away) reconcilable with scripture, which doesn't even seem to be aware at all that our sun and the stars in the sky are the same class of object?