Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[Native]

With reference to the deification of planets.

Lot of astronomical and cosmological confusions are taking place in books and encyclopedia, because authors and scholars aren´t aware that ancient Myths of Creation deals with real astronomical and cosmological matters in the Milky Way.

Thus confusing:

#8 The Solar System planets to be equal with the Olympian/Pantheon deities.

These academic confusions of course distorts both the mythical telling and its astronomical and cosmological meanings, and it of course creates further confusions when debaters discuss the mythological and cosmological matters.

-------------------------
The original Greek planetary names derived from their natural appearances and motions.

1) Phainon , ”the shiner” = The later Roman Saturn
2) Phaethon, “bright” = The later Roman Jupiter
3) Pyroeis “the fiery” = The later Roman Mars
4) Phosphoros, “the light bringer” = The later Roman Venus
5) Stilbon, “the gleamer” = The later Roman Mercury

“Today, most people in the western world know the planets by names derived from the Olympian pantheon of gods. Although modern Greeks still use their ancient names for the planets, other European languages, because of the influence of the Roman Empire and, later, the Catholic Church, use the Roman (Latin) names rather than the Greek ones".
-------------------------
If you google: "ancient myth+planetary names", the Roman Empire indirect deification of planets is mentioned all over the places and all myths of the Olympus and Pantheon are ascribed to planets and today, scholars just accepts the nonsense that planets can resemble ancient deities (forces) of creation. Even in encyclopedia this nonsense is repeated again and again.

It´s really tragicomic! Just by reading the myths which today are popularly connected to planets, anyone can see the that planets cannot look like female or male figures and deities, and when sticking firmly to the mythical contexts and contents, there is NO WAY that planets fits the mythical context. This isn´t just tragicomic. It´s down right stupid.

 

[Native]

All I know is that your own interpretations don’t align with modern astronomical knowledge and astronomical facts.

Are you kidding me? How can you compare the ancestral conditions of observation with the tools of modern cosmology? We have a few thousand years of observation development here.

And when we are dealing with the ancient Stories of Creation, you have 2 possible interpretations of this creation:

#1 Either you take this story to deal with the creation of our 4.6 bill. years old Solar System
#2 Or you take it as the creation story of the 13.4 bill. years old Milky Way.

In both cases, the observable conditions of course has changed throughout this these time scales, so your actual informations of the astronomical and cosmological conditions is not an evidence of the general and original conditions of the creation. This especially regards the "first fiery Light entity" which is noted in the Ogdoad creation story i.e. the central light in the Milky Way was far more luminous at this stage.

But of course, since the mythical stories of creation in your mind, is "just myths", all mythical and logical explanations are wasted on you in advance.

 

[Native]

Subject: Big Bang, galactic ages and formation.

In cosmology, scientists are working with the formation proces in a Big Bang and with the aging concept of galaxies, but, as usual, the scientists gets one surprise after the other.

The Youngest Galaxies in the Universe Spin Like the Mature Milky Way
"Astronomers have looked back nearly 13 billion years and found very early galaxies that exhibit a steady swirling motion, very similar to the spin of galaxies that exist today. This type of motion was not expected to occur in young, turbulent galaxies of the early universe".

The different between a young and old galaxy, is that the young ones have tight arms and a high luminous center, suggesting a very high star formation in it´s center - and mature galaxies have more open arms, often with barred structures and a lesser luminous center, suggesting a lower formation of stars in the center.

When scientists observed all kind of types of galaxies in the observable Universe, this is of course because there newer was a Big Bang. Such an idea derives from false formation theories and measuring methods in the first place. And in the second place, scientists just take "age = distance" which is unscientific nonsense.

"Age" in the Universe doesn´t exists. All motions in the Universe is eternal and cyclical where everything is transformed in a formation proces of formation, dissolution and re-formation. This is why scientists can observe all kinds of galaxies in all kind of stages of formation all over the place.

 

[sealchan]

Subject: Big Bang, galactic ages and formation.

In cosmology, scientists are working with the formation proces in a Big Bang and with the aging concept of galaxies, but, as usual, the scientists gets one surprise after the other.

The Youngest Galaxies in the Universe Spin Like the Mature Milky Way
"Astronomers have looked back nearly 13 billion years and found very early galaxies that exhibit a steady swirling motion, very similar to the spin of galaxies that exist today. This type of motion was not expected to occur in young, turbulent galaxies of the early universe".

The different between a young and old galaxy, is that the young ones have tight arms and a high luminous center, suggesting a very high star formation in it´s center - and mature galaxies have more open arms, often with barred structures and a lesser luminous center, suggesting a lower formation of stars in the center.

When scientists observed all kind of types of galaxies in the observable Universe, this is of course because there newer was a Big Bang. Such an idea derives from false formation theories and measuring methods in the first place. And in the second place, scientists just take "age = distance" which is unscientific nonsense.

"Age" in the Universe doesn´t exists. All motions in the Universe is eternal and cyclical where everything is transformed in a formation proces of formation, dissolution and re-formation. This is why scientists can observe all kinds of galaxies in all kind of stages of formation all over the place.

The scientists aren't quite with you here...at least they are holding out for this to be acceptible within the Big Bang model. Still this is something to watch with respect to your own thoughts. But still couldn't we have an eternal Universe WITH a Big Bang?

Smits said they need to conduct more observations to determine if these galaxies are truly quite different from others galaxies in that time period or if they represent a larger population of evolved galaxies.

“With our observations and what we see with Hubble, it all points to these galaxies being slight outliers,” Smits said. “These galaxies must somehow be more evolved than other galaxies, and we’d like to know why.”

from The Youngest Galaxies in the Universe Spin Like the Mature Milky Way

 

[sealchan]

Yes, but not via "their creative mis- or re- interpretation", as such. The mythical misinterpretation is the result of a cultural fragmentation where the myths slowly gets distorted over a longer time frame.

This has especially taken place in Western countries because of the de-mythification in the monotheistic Abrahamic religions, but this fragmentation can be observed to some extent everywhere where materialism has taken more and more over.

I think I would include what you said under misinterpretation. Maybe creative was best meant for reinterpretation. My apologies.

 

[sealchan]

OK, I´ll look forward to your explanation. In the meantime, I just take the human brain as a communication center for everything inside and outside the human body.

I see the human brain as part of a trilogy of God, Consciousness and the Universe. Each term represents the whole of creation from different perspectives. Everything we know about either is represented in our Consciousness which is an expression of the activity of the human brain in the context of the physical Universe and of the cultural-linguistic systems we use to communicate our models of that Universe and of ourselves.

I like to start with the assumption that we look at the world through "brain-colored glasses" (as in "rose-colored glasses" for a optimistic outlook) and it is vital with respect to extra-ordinary claims to understand how our brains alter what we see in the world. For instance, there is no such thing as "color" except in how one's brain invents that experience by virtue of the configuration of its light detecting neurons in coordination with the reality of the electromagnetic spectrum.

So what I think you are claiming must tap into this particular area of study. Not sure how exactly at the moment but will continue to think about it.

 

[Native]

The scientists aren't quite with you here...at least they are holding out for this to be acceptible within the Big Bang model. Still this is something to watch with respect to your own thoughts. But still couldn't we have an eternal Universe WITH a Big Bang?

In the theory, yes. But then the scientists have to abandon their linear time scale and their formation theory - and even the aging method of the Universe.

Smits said:
"These galaxies must somehow be more evolved than other galaxies, and we’d like to know why.”

The scientists of course holds onto their standing theory instead of revising this when contradicted, and then they´ll newer get it right.

I think I would include what you said under misinterpretation. Maybe creative was best meant for reinterpretation. My apologies.

Newer mind this. We understood each other anyway

 

[sealchan]

In the theory, yes. But then the scientists have to abandon their linear time scale and their formation theory - and even the aging method of the Universe.

Smits said:
"These galaxies must somehow be more evolved than other galaxies, and we’d like to know why.”

The scientists of course holds onto their standing theory instead of revising this when contradicted, and then they´ll newer get it right.

Newer mind this. We understood each other anyway

Yes, I think this happens a lot in science...some particular observation threatens to undermine a much larger theory. All in all, I trust science to sort things out one way or the other. Unlike politically powerful religions, science changes its story as its experience dictates it should do so.

 

[Native]

I see the human brain as part of a trilogy of God, Consciousness and the Universe. Each term represents the whole of creation from different perspectives. Everything we know about either is represented in our Consciousness which is an expression of the activity of the human brain in the context of the physical Universe and of the cultural-linguistic systems we use to communicate our models of that Universe and of ourselves.

I agree in this - Though, I would like to add the Goddess to your God as well in order to balance the prime qualities and forces of creation.

I like to start with the assumption that we look at the world through "brain-colored glasses" (as in "rose-colored glasses" for a optimistic outlook) and it is vital with respect to extra-ordinary claims to understand how our brains alter what we see in the world. For instance, there is no such thing as "color" except in how one's brain invents that experience by virtue of the configuration of its light detecting neurons in coordination with the reality of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Back in 1979 I had a spontaneous out-of-body experience out in cosmos where I saw a vertical zig-sag pattern of different colors and a thundering sound frequencies changing every time the line changed directions up and down. This was just a clear recognition of "the music of the creation", which is made by electromagnetic vibrations.

 

[sealchan]

I agree in this - Though, I would like to add the Goddess to your God as well in order to balance the prime qualities and forces of creation.

Funny you should mention this...

Return of the Goddess: God's Self-Creation

 

[Native]

Funny you should mention this...
Return of the Goddess: God's Self-Creation

In most ancient Stories of Creation both a Goddess and a God are participating in the creation and this was also the case in the ancient Jewish mythology where the consort of JHVH is Ashera - but of course the patriarchal part in this religion got Ashera abandoned and binned. This is an example of how ancient myths are skewed for several different reasons. - More here on Ashera

If using a modern scientific term of JHVH and Ashera as creative forces, JHVH represents the repulsing part in electromagnetism and Ashera represents the attractive part of EM.

 

[gnostic]

Are you kidding me? How can you compare the ancestral conditions of observation with the tools of modern cosmology? We have a few thousand years of observation development here.

And when we are dealing with the ancient Stories of Creation, you have 2 possible interpretations of this creation:

#1 Either you take this story to deal with the creation of our 4.6 bill. years old Solar System
#2 Or you take it as the creation story of the 13.4 bill. years old Milky Way.

In both cases, the observable conditions of course has changed throughout this these time scales, so your actual informations of the astronomical and cosmological conditions is not an evidence of the general and original conditions of the creation. This especially regards the "first fiery Light entity" which is noted in the Ogdoad creation story i.e. the central light in the Milky Way was far more luminous at this stage.

But of course, since the mythical stories of creation in your mind, is "just myths", all mythical and logical explanations are wasted on you in advance.

Subject: Big Bang, galactic ages and formation.

In cosmology, scientists are working with the formation proces in a Big Bang and with the aging concept of galaxies, but, as usual, the scientists gets one surprise after the other.

The Youngest Galaxies in the Universe Spin Like the Mature Milky Way
"Astronomers have looked back nearly 13 billion years and found very early galaxies that exhibit a steady swirling motion, very similar to the spin of galaxies that exist today. This type of motion was not expected to occur in young, turbulent galaxies of the early universe".

The different between a young and old galaxy, is that the young ones have tight arms and a high luminous center, suggesting a very high star formation in it´s center - and mature galaxies have more open arms, often with barred structures and a lesser luminous center, suggesting a lower formation of stars in the center.

When scientists observed all kind of types of galaxies in the observable Universe, this is of course because there newer was a Big Bang. Such an idea derives from false formation theories and measuring methods in the first place. And in the second place, scientists just take "age = distance" which is unscientific nonsense.

"Age" in the Universe doesn´t exists. All motions in the Universe is eternal and cyclical where everything is transformed in a formation proces of formation, dissolution and re-formation. This is why scientists can observe all kinds of galaxies in all kind of stages of formation all over the place.

And the absurdities and utter ignorance continued...

You don’t understand the concepts of the Big Bang, and yet you insisted on talking about it, but you post a lot of misinformation regarding to the Big Bang.

And when you talk about the Milky Way, or the Solar System, or the Sun itself, you don’t show any understanding beyond the most superficial observation, and again, you use a lot of misinformation regarding these subjects.

You talk of scientists being stupid, not knowing anything about astronomy, as if they were running scared of being wrong when they discovered something new.

But this just more of your crazy misinformation and propaganda from you, because I see the complete opposite; astronomers and astrophysicists are actually excited about every new discoveries, even if it challenged their current views.

 

[gnostic]

Are you kidding me? How can you compare the ancestral conditions of observation with the tools of modern cosmology? We have a few thousand years of observation development here.

And when we are dealing with the ancient Stories of Creation, you have 2 possible interpretations of this creation:

#1 Either you take this story to deal with the creation of our 4.6 bill. years old Solar System
#2 Or you take it as the creation story of the 13.4 bill. years old Milky Way.

In both cases, the observable conditions of course has changed throughout this these time scales, so your actual informations of the astronomical and cosmological conditions is not an evidence of the general and original conditions of the creation. This especially regards the "first fiery Light entity" which is noted in the Ogdoad creation story i.e. the central light in the Milky Way was far more luminous at this stage.

But of course, since the mythical stories of creation in your mind, is "just myths", all mythical and logical explanations are wasted on you in advance.

Whenever you the ancients, or one as superstitious as yourself, actually believe in connection between some celestial bodies with some gods or spirits (and their traditional stories, myths), then they are in essence "superstitions".

If you think the shape or contour of the observable part of the Milky Way resembled some male or female gods, or some animals, eg cow, then that also believing in superstitions.

What you doing, connecting some myths to Sun, stars, planets, etc, that's not only superstitions, what it is, it is more to do with astrology than astronomy.

 

[gnostic]

If using a modern scientific term of JHVH and Ashera as creative forces, JHVH represents the repulsing part in electromagnetism and Ashera represents the attractive part of EM.

There you go again.

More silly superstitions.

 

[Native]

You don’t understand the concepts of the Big Bang, and yet you insisted on talking about it, but you post a lot of misinformation regarding to the Big Bang.

If you have read the article, you would have known that it deals with scientists who have forund unexpected observations of a galaxy which contradicts the formational idea of Big Bang. But in your blind opposition against me, you criticize me instead of the theory.

Besides this: Neither you or any other human understand Big Bang, because it isn´t proven at all, which is why there are more Big Bang ideas.

And when you talk about the Milky Way, or the Solar System, or the Sun itself, you don’t any understanding beyond the most superficial observation, and again, you use a lot of misinformation regarding these subjects.

This is called "critical thinking and investigating of dogmas". You should try this someday

 

[Native]

Whenever you the ancients, or one as superstitious as yourself, actually believe in connection between some celestial bodies with some gods or spirits (and their traditional stories, myths), then they are in essence "superstitions".
If you think the shape or contour of the observable part of the Milky Way resembled some male or female gods, or some animals, eg cow, then that also believing in superstitions.
What you doing, connecting some myths to Sun, stars, planets, etc, that's not only superstitions, what it is, it is more to do with astrology than astronomy.

How can you tell and decide since to you "myths are just myths"? You have no clues of what myths are at all and how they were made. You are a total ignorant in this area and I cannot take you serious at all.

Even when different astronomical objects are mentioned in myths you just ignore them, hence you are disqualified in this department.

 

[Native]

There you go again. More silly superstitions.

You can thank your eklatant laziness as a debater for having made a fool of yourself with this statement. What about making some independent research yourself before you judge anything?

Just keep away from commenting on anything which deals with myths, and then you´ll be fine.

 

[Native]

What you doing, connecting some myths to Sun, stars, planets, etc, that's not only superstitions, what it is, it is more to do with astrology than astronomy.

What? Obviously you don´t read my posts at all. I´ve all over the places opposed against the stupid idea that planets should represent any gods or goddesses.

And the entire contents in the article I linked to you, dealt ONLY with this refusal. But of course you just ignored the link, you lazy ignorant of a debater. Try again here before you reply!

 

[gnostic]

You can thank your eklatant laziness as a debater for having made a fool of yourself with this statement. What about making some independent research yourself before you judge anything?

Just keep away from commenting on anything which deals with myths, and then you´ll be fine.

You have just presumed Ashera as electromagnetism, hence “superstition”.

If the ancients thought Zeus or Thor was responsible for the lightnings in a thunderstorm, probably because they believed the god is angry, I would say those people believed in superstitions.

If a person hurt or kill someone because god or the Devil told him to, I would say he is delusional and superstitious.

That you believed ashera is the attractive force in electromagnetism, then I would you are superstitious.

If I see a chicken, I would call it a chicken, not a duck or turkey. I don’t and won’t mince my words for your comfort or convenience.

So I would say superstition, if I see people believe in superstition.

Do you want me to be truthful with my opinions or not?

 

[gnostic]

What? Obviously you don´t read my posts at all. I´ve all over the places opposed against the stupid idea that planets should represent any gods or goddesses.

BS

You wrote earlier that the contour of the Milky Way is the shape of male Sumerian/Babylonian god Utu/Shamash, and not a sun god.

You are saying basically how the band of Milky Way resemble the shape of a person, and assert everyone calling Utu a “sun god” is wrong, but it is okay for you claim him to be the Milky Way.

Likewise, you think Re is not a sun god, but the central light of the Milky Way.

That’s all typical superstition.