Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[gnostic]

To gnostic, dreams are just woo but they sort of become real when gnostic need some bad arguments against all who have significant dreams and visions.

You are doing it again, Native. You are putting up straw man to argue with.

I have not discussed anything about dreams and visions in this thread, neither yours, nor mine.

What I have argue with, are your interpretations on myths, and your interpretations on science.

You stated one time before you being the Devil’s advocate. Do you think I should not be argue with you if I don’t agree with you?

If you want to interpret myths you do, do I remain silent if I disagree?

After all, you have been telling me to leave your thread, repeatedly, if I cannot agree with you or I don’t find validity in your stance.

As to the straw man:

Try not to put false words in my mouth.

 

[Native]

After all, you have been telling me to leave your thread, repeatedly, if I cannot agree with you or I don’t find validity in your stance.

Pure argumentative woo.

Of course you are welcome to give your opinion, BUT:

I just pointed out for you that you don´t participate with constructive comments regarding the mythical department of creation. It demands insight in this department and not just denials en masse.

And what concerns validity and anomalies in the cosmological science of formational theories, you just repeat what you have read or been told, without questioning even the worse and illogical ideas.

 

[ecco]

Strawman. Why would I otherwise make a public website???

Not my strawman. You are the one who complained when I looked at the video that you made and linked from your website.

Contrary to your approach here, ancient shamans, medicine man, religious seers, etc. and even Jungian Psychologists know of the importance of dreams and visions.

You are right about that: They "know of the importance of dreams and visions". They have made tons of money over the ages selling the BS of dreams to a gullible public.

This is no excuse for insulting everyone you meet on your way.

I don't insult everyone I meet. I call BS, BS. I call nonsensical beliefs, nonsensical beliefs. I call on people to try to substantiate their outrageous claims. To do otherwise would be an insult to intellect.

 

[ecco]

Do you yourself like to be mentioned in 3. person gossip level statements?

You're shouting again. Perhaps you think putting things in bold make them clearer to understand. It doesn't.

Was that addressed to gnostic or me?
What gossip level statements are you referring to?

 

[Native]

You're shouting again. Perhaps you think putting things in bold make them clearer to understand. It doesn't.

Was that addressed to gnostic or me?
What gossip level statements are you referring to?

It´s funny that you mostly shows up when this thread is about to be derailed with personal mud throwing.

l If you aren´t aware of what is going on here, just keep out of the discussions.

 

[Native]

Was that addressed to gnostic or me?
What gossip level statements are you referring to?

UPS!
When I linked Gnostic above I didn´t realize that "Ecco" reacted on these links and I thougth it was Gnostic.
My mistake, sorry!

 

[Native]

Subject: Greek Mythology

The Olympians were the principal deities of the Greek pantheon, so named because of their residency atop Mount Olympus. They gained their supremacy in a ten-year-long war of gods, in which Zeus led his siblings to victory over the previous generation of ruling gods, the Titans.

They were a family of gods, the most important consisting of the first generation of Olympians, offspring of the Titans Cronus and Rhea: Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Demeter and Hestia, along with the principal offspring of Zeus: Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Ares, Aphrodite, Hephaestus, Hermes, and Dionysus.

Although Hades was a major deity in the Greek pantheon, and was the brother of Zeus and the other first generation of Olympians, his realm was far away from Olympus in the underworld, and thus he was not usually considered to be one of the Olympians. - Twelve Olympians - Wikipedia

? What does ”The Underworld” mean?

Olympus was notable in Greek mythology as the home of the Greek gods, on Mytikas peak. Mount Olympus is also noted for its rich flora. It has been a National Park, the first in Greece, since 1938. It is also a World Biosphere Reserve - Mount Olympus - Wikipedia

? Did the Greek gods live on a mountain on Earth?

When studying mythology, it seems that all kinds of confusions and inconsistent interpretations are taking place. In many cases mythical deities are connected to a location on Earth and thus become "geomyths", and in real many cases, different luminous objects are confused with each other and even with quite different astronomical objects, as for instants the circle symbol of the Earth celestial axial rotation pole.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
Hathor came to native in a dream and told him. Hathor, thousands of years ago, came to Egyptians in dreams and told them so. That's how they know and you can't prove no different. So, there.

It´s funny that you mostly shows up when this thread is about to be derailed with personal mud throwing.

UPS!
When I linked Gnostic above I didn´t realize that "Ecco" reacted on these links and I thougth it was Gnostic.
My mistake, sorry!

You quote me in your post #360 then you complain when I comment on your post.

You confuse me with gnostic even when you include quotes from us in your posts.

Maybe you need to go back to bed and have some nice dreams that will give you insight on how to be aware of what is going on in this thread.

 

[Native]

ecco said: ↑
Hathor came to native in a dream and told him. Hathor, thousands of years ago, came to Egyptians in dreams and told them so. That's how they know and you can't prove no different. So, there.

Of course not so. It´s just the same creative and natural force of creation which still works and still gives the same visions and informations with the same content to sensitive persons. This is just a mystery for those who haven´t had such natural experiences.

You quote me in your post #360 then you complain when I comment on your post.
You confuse me with gnostic even when you include quotes from us in your posts.

This is what quickly happens when two or more debaters names occurs in the same post and are together with their personal critiques.

 

[Native]

Maybe you need to go back to bed and have some nice dreams that will give you insight on how to be aware of what is going on in this thread.

Even when I said sorry, the insults keep coming anyway.

If someone did mention anything of "dream and visions" I would politely and curiously ask into his/hers interpretation instead of just belittle these because I didn´t understood these.

 

[Native]

Back to the discussion please #367

 

[ecco]

If someone did mention anything of "dream and visions" I would politely and curiously ask into his/hers interpretation instead of just belittle these because I didn´t understood these.

I wouldn't belittle something I don't understand.

On the other hand, it is clear from your posts that you do not understand even basic astronomy yet you belittle modern day astronomers and modern day astronomical knowledge.

So, it seems your politeness and curiosity only extend those who share your views about dreams and visions.

 

[Native]

I wouldn't belittle something I don't understand.

You didn´t even understood to take up the discussion as I asked for

Back to the discussion please #367

Stop that personal nonsens NOW!

 

[gnostic]

I just pointed out for you that you don´t participate with constructive comments regarding the mythical department of creation. It demands insight in this department and not just denials en masse.

Wrong.

I have given a number of examples to demonstrate both myths and modern astronomy that oppose your arguments and interpretations.

Your refusal to admit your mistakes, whenever anyone often explanations are met with arrogant ignorance. You like a child with his fingers in his ears, singing “la, la, la”, in denials of reality of some astronomical facts.

Everyone repeatedly told you that no one (which would include you and the ancient stargazers) can directly see (“directly see” as in “unaided” and “naked eye”, meaning no binoculars, telescopes, filters and other devices) the “entire Milky Way”, let alone the galactic centre of the Milky Way.

And the reason you cannot see the “centre” or the “entire galaxy” (again, naked eye) is that the following:

1. location on earth (hence local view), the limitation of the eyes to see vast distance and
2. plus the band of the Milky Way that everyone can see in the night sky are more likely local stars, the glow (ionised of interstellar gasses) and dark areas (ie interstellar dust) that come from our own Orion arm, and from a portion of Sagittarius arm.

Even the retired astronomer Regiomontanus had stated that everyone seeing the “band of the Milky Way” cannot see the entire galaxy, and that interstellar dust from the Sagittarius arm, as well as dust from the Crux-Scutum and Norma arms behind Sagittarius, all prevent the galactic centre or bulge being seen.

All of the above regarding to our eyes cannot view the entire galaxy or the galactic centre, are facts that you have denied and continued to dance around.

My reasonings, which from these examples, are sound, then there is no way for the ancient Egyptian stargazers can know about the galactic centre or bulge of the Milky Way, meaning that they cannot possibly compare Re to this centre or to the central light of galaxy.

Re does not equal to “central light” of Milky Way.

The fact that you cannot view the entire galaxy or the galaxy’s centre, make you are the one “in denial”.

 

[gnostic]

UPS!
When I linked Gnostic above I didn´t realize that "Ecco" reacted on these links and I thougth it was Gnostic.
My mistake, sorry!

Does that apology include me?

Because I wasn’t the one who commented on your dreams and vision. And I have only disagreed with your interpretations of myths and disagreed with your knowledge on both ancient and modern astronomy.

 

[sealchan]

Hello All
It is my opinion that ancient stories of creation are comparable with the modern formation stories and sometimes they confirm each other and sometimes they don´t. But which are closest to a natural "truth"?

Again IMO ancient stories of creation speaks of a cyclic creation process of creation, dissolution and re-creation, where modern theories mostly speaks of a beginning of the Universe and a linear time of about 13.8 bill. years.

When considering how much our ancestors could observe of the cosmos in day- and night time, the physical limits would at the most be observations of the Milky Way, which most likely would be included in their stories.

Besides this, some persons also would consider the possibility of the human spirit/mind to sense the cosmic realms in the Milky Way and beyond. (Most of us have read of persons in the Bible and elsewhere, who had a "close encounter with the force of creation")

Modern cosmology have gone far out in space and shown lots of marvelous images of galaxies and even earthly planets around stars. All over the place modern cosmology have made hypothesis and theories, right from the Solar System formation to galaxies, clusters of galaxies and superclusters of galaxies.

The big question for me in this thread, is whether ancient and modern stories tells the same basic story and which of these stories are the most natural and logical.

What do you think of this?

Note: I am NOT a creationist but I have studied cultural Myths of Creation and Modern Cosmology

I have a theory that there may be a common framework behind the many great epics in the worlds cultures. Perhaps this extends to the related creation myth. It does seem to include the flood story.

But I think your angle is more that the creation stories all reference the observed structure of the cosmos correct?

 

[Native]

Does that apology include me?

Regarding my mix up with you and ecco, yes.

 

[Native]

@gnostic ,

Resume:
My topic deals specifically with Ancient and Modern Creation Stories. This demands of course some knowledge and interest of both areas in order to make a comparison of both.

Native said earlier:
↑
I just pointed out for you that you don´t participate with constructive comments regarding the mythical department of creation. It demands insight in this department and not just denials en masse.

Wrong.
I have given a number of examples to demonstrate both myths and modern astronomy that oppose your arguments and interpretations.

Regarding your astronomical mythical department, you have shifted between an opposition to my Sun-interpretations, which is fine, to right out denials of any astronomical connections in myths, a direct contradiction which I´ve pointed out for you few times.

Even that I very much oppose the modern creation BB-stories, I of course cannot be in opposition to what modern astronomy for a fact have observed. But, as this topic deals with the creation story, you have to stick with the BB-theories, if you wish to discuss modern cosmological science.

I´ve pointed this out several times:
You cannot compare the language and observable knowledge in ancient myths directly with the instrumental observations and its informations. You have to be familiar with the mythical symbolism used in their stories of creation before you make such comparisons.

You have to accept the astronomical and cosmological contents in myths and try to interpret what our ancestors told about the creation. But since you even don´t take and accept an direct astronomical information in the myths seriously, you´ll never understand the mythical language and we´ll never get anywhere in our discussion here.

My reasonings, which from these examples, are sound, then there is no way for the ancient Egyptian stargazers can know about the galactic centre or bulge of the Milky Way, meaning that they cannot possibly compare Re to this centre or to the central light of galaxy. Re does not equal to “central light” of Milky Way.

OK, let´s say, for the sake of arguments, you are right in this. Is Re = the Sun in your opinion and not the Milky Way central light? Then I have to ask you: Do you really mean it this time? Has ancient myths astronomical informations or not?

(Note this: We are referring to the Ogdoad creation myth in this case) (And you forgot to include the Re - Hathor connection in your argument, but never mind this for now)

There are lots of astronomical indications and informations in ancient myths:

#1 Milky Way Myths
#2 Solar Myths
#3 Star Constellation Myths
#4 More Star Constellation Myths

#2 Warning. The Solar Light Symbolism in many myths, is often confused for the light contours of the Milky Way, the Milky Way center and even the polar rotation wheel symbolism.

 

[Native]

I have a theory that there may be a common framework behind the many great epics in the worlds cultures. Perhaps this extends to the related creation myth. It does seem to include the flood story.
But I think your angle is more that the creation stories all reference the observed structure of the cosmos correct?

Give me some hints of what "great epics" you´re thinking of. And yes to the last sentence, but there could of course be a connection to great epics too.

 

[gnostic]

@gnostic ,

Resume:
My topic deals specifically with Ancient and Modern Creation Stories. This demands of course some knowledge and interest of both areas in order to make a comparison of both.

Native said earlier:
↑
I just pointed out for you that you don´t participate with constructive comments regarding the mythical department of creation. It demands insight in this department and not just denials en masse.

Regarding your astronomical mythical department, you have shifted between an opposition to my Sun-interpretations, which is fine, to right out denials of any astronomical connections in myths, a direct contradiction which I´ve pointed out for you few times.

Even that I very much oppose the modern creation BB-stories, I of course cannot be in opposition to what modern astronomy for a fact have observed. But, as this topic deals with the creation story, you have to stick with the BB-theories, if you wish to discuss modern cosmological science.

I´ve pointed this out several times:
You cannot compare the language and observable knowledge in ancient myths directly with the instrumental observations and its informations. You have to be familiar with the mythical symbolism used in their stories of creation before you make such comparisons.

You have to accept the astronomical and cosmological contents in myths and try to interpret what our ancestors told about the creation. But since you even don´t take and accept an direct astronomical information in the myths seriously, you´ll never understand the mythical language and we´ll never get anywhere in our discussion here.

OK, let´s say, for the sake of arguments, you are right in this. Is Re = the Sun in your opinion and not the Milky Way central light? Then I have to ask you: Do you really mean it this time? Has ancient myths astronomical informations or not?

(Note this: We are referring to the Ogdoad creation myth in this case) (And you forgot to include the Re - Hathor connection in your argument, but never mind this for now)

There are lots of astronomical indications and informations in ancient myths:

#1 Milky Way Myths
#2 Solar Myths
#3 Star Constellation Myths
#4 More Star Constellation Myths

#2 Warning. The Solar Light Symbolism in many myths, is often confused for the light contours of the Milky Way, the Milky Way center and even the polar rotation wheel symbolism.

Native, I am well aware of ancient Egyptian literature, and one of the things I tried to do, is to research by finding what literature are available, especially those concerning creation myths and myths of different gods.

I know of many different myths, and I know while the Ogdoad deities are old, I know of no extant creation myth of the Ogdoad.

Yes, there are some references, here and there, but no complete creation myth of the Ogdoad exist today.

If there were complete myth of Ogdoad, it is long lost.

What we have, regarding to the Ogdoad myth are mostly modern reconstruction myth, based on lot of scattered references and lot of speculation.