Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[Native]

I wouldn't call it 'knowledge'. I would call it myth and speculation. What else would you want to say about it?

Note the topic in this thread:

"Ancient and Modern Creation Stories".

If you cannot contribute with constructive mythical comments, just keep out of the specific mythical discussions. You are derailing the thread with your negative no-comment comments.

 

[gnostic]

Why are you then arguing at all, if you don´t take the factual mentioning of the Sun in their creation story seriously?

Mentioning the sun in a story, isn’t “factual”, Native.

And providing symbols to actual objects or mythological objects, don’t mean they have understanding.

Painting stars on cow or a naked woman’s body, on her and feet, is simply superstitions and wild imagination, Native, not them understanding what these stars really are.

Do not confuse symbols or iconography as facts, Native.

The facts are, THERE ARE REALLY NO NAKED WOMAN OR HEAVENLY COW IN THE SKY!

The facts are, there are no boat or barque that sailed across the sky, no falcon-headed god piloting the boat.

The facts are, the Sun isn’t a sun god, a sun goddess (whether she be in the shapes of cow, lioness, or a eye of Re or the eye of Horus.

Facts required evidences, not symbols.

Until you can provide actual evidences that heavenly Solar Barque, heavenly (naked) woman, heavenly cow exist, you actually have no facts at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Not on the Earth they don´t.

Huh? yes, in fact, they do. There is speculation in the Greek mythologies, speculation in the Babylonian mythologies, and, in fact, speculation in every single mythology ever dreamed up.

Gods and Goddesses run around all the time in all those mythologies.

 

[Native]

Mentioning the sun in a story, isn’t “factual”, Native.

OK, that´s it. You argue Re to be the Sun and afterwards you deny that the mythical Suns is real.

Can you come to an agreement with yourself in this matter?

 

[Native]

Huh? yes, in fact, they do. There is speculation in the Greek mythologies, speculation in the Babylonian mythologies, and, in fact, speculation in every single mythology ever dreamed up.
Gods and Goddesses run around all the time in all those mythologies.

Oh, so the Christian God is also running around on the Earth? I otherwise thought this God to reside in the Heaven

 

[Polymath257]

Yes but NOT on the Earth.

Um, yes they do. Frequently. Read a bit of Ovid's Metamorphosis, or the Iliad and Odyssey, for example. Gods ran around on the Earth and interacted with people, animals, etc all the time.

 

[gnostic]

OK, that´s it. You argue Re to be the Sun and afterwards you deny that the mythical Suns is real.

Can you come to an agreement with yourself in this matter?

Native, the “Sun” is the “Sun” or the “Sun” is a “star”.

The Egyptians may believe in Re to be a sun god, but he was never real.

Re is no more real than the Sumerian Utu (or Babylonian Shamash), the Greek Helios, the Norse Sol, etc.

The Egyptians may believe that Hathor to be the Milky Way, but the Milky Way is neither in the shape of a woman, nor that of the cow.

Symbols and symbolic representations are not facts.

 

[sealchan]

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.

I'm currently focusing in on the following:

• Bible
• The Mahabharata
• Greek Epic and Myth

Here is an outline I am creating in an effort to help me keep track of the "concordances" between the mythic traditions. Some of it is solid and some is highly sketchy. It could be that the creation myths of these epics set the first act of the succession motif where a higher divine state gradually devolves to a lower human state with greater and greater moral compromise.

Succession - The gradual corruption of the world from the heavenly to the earthly

Biblical
Patriarchs: Adam - Noah - Abraham - Isaac - Jacob/Israel
God - Christ
Greek
Hesiod’s Theogony: Uranus - Cronus - Zeus
Indian
Manu - Shantanu - Pandu/Dhritarashtra


Great Flood - A wet reset of the world's population in early history

Biblical
Noah
Greek
Ogyges
Deucalion
Dardanus
Indian
Manu


Great War - A great confrontation that settles the main dilemma of the epic

Brothers
Biblical
Jacob - Esau
Moses - Ramses
?Satan - Jesus
Greek
?Trojans - Greeks
?Atreides: Agamemnon - Menelaus
Indian
Pandava - Karuva

Father "Blind"
Bible
Isaac
Greek
Priam
Indian
Dhritarashtra

Uncle "Trickster"
Biblical
Laban
Greek
?
Indian
Shakuni

 

[sealchan]

Native,

From a sampling of this thread it looks like there is a continual inclusion of new information...at this point I wish I could read through the whole thread but that is too big of a bite to take all at once!

When you are done with this thread I invite you to consider restarting with smaller, more focused topics. I may have a lot to discuss with you.

 

[Native]

Um, yes they do. Frequently. Read a bit of Ovid's Metamorphosis, or the Iliad and Odyssey, for example. Gods ran around on the Earth and interacted with people, animals, etc all the time.

Compare to the myths and especially the myths of creation these tellings are the popular explanation of the myths told to those who were not initiated in the myths.

What makes gods and goddesses to "run around", is in fact the revolution of the Earth where the Sun god, star constellations and the Milky Way contours to seemingly turn around in the day- and night Sky.

 

[Polymath257]

Compare to the myths and especially the myths of creation these tellings are the popular explanation of the myths told to those who were not initiated in the myths.

What makes gods and goddesses to "run around", is in fact the revolution of the Earth where the Sun god, star constellations and the Milky Way contours to seemingly turn around in the day- and night Sky.

When Athena appears at the Battle of Try, that was not due to the Earth's rotation.

Sorry, this interpretation simply doesn't fit the facts.

 

[Native]

Native, the “Sun” is the “Sun” or the “Sun” is a “star”.

Now you are falling into your own selfmade restricted trap again. You keep forgetting that you cannot compare the myths directly to the modern description of everything.

Of course the ancient Sun is just as much the Sun as the modern Sun, but it is described in symbols and symbolic language. And if you don´t take the mythical language seriously, you cannot understand the ancient myths at all.

Re is no more real than the Sumerian Utu (or Babylonian Shamash), the Greek Helios, the Norse Sol, etc.

I could elaborate on this too, but why should I since you refute the myths anyway?

The Egyptians may believe that Hathor to be the Milky Way, but the Milky Way is neither in the shape of a woman, nor that of the cow.

If you have NO scientific or imagery knowledge of the Milky Way, how would you describe the outlooks of the Milky Way contours? Just think of this and you´ll get the answer why ancient cultures named and described the Milky Way in different human and animal images.

 

[Native]

When Athena appears at the Battle of Try, that was not due to the Earth's rotation.
Sorry, this interpretation simply doesn't fit the facts.

Athena is a patroness in the Greek myth and she was a protector of the land and prayed to in war times. Don´t take ancient myths as historical facts.

 

[sealchan]

It seems that one of the contentions on this thread revolves around the notion of the truth claim implicit in the mention of celestial objects in myths and how that might relate to our current "myth" of how the universe was created.

My own view is that it is clear that the fundamental division in early creation is very often that between the heavens and the earth. The heavens are above and far away. This implies a superior, broader perspective. Hence that which is superior in human nature is projected onto that heavenly sphere. Conversely we have the mystery of the stars and other heavenly objects which are clearly a source for the crafting of those myths that oral and literate culture have preserved.

Just as we look to variations in the cosmic background radiation for clues to the story of what happened in the very early universe, so to did the ancient story-tellers look at the stars and the river we call the Milky Way for clues as to the divine origin of creation. However, I think that from our much deeper factual understanding today we can say that the understanding of the ancient story-tellers was superficial in most cases.

Where that understanding still competes with our modern one is in the realm of realizing the limits of any rational system of understanding. In thinking somewhat rationally about the basic facts of what appears in the night sky, the ancient story tellers had a canvas on which to consider the mystery of the origin of humanity and of being itself. But again, with their limited interaction with this heavenly realm, their objective insight into the nature of that reality is limited.

Still I think that the Big Bang theory may depict a beginning and linear progression in the popular imagination, but this is likely to give way as science considers the multi-verse and the possibility of conjecturing as to the nature of a pre-Big Bang reality out of which this Universe has arisen. Scientists are following the data and also a lot of rigorous mathematics (with experimental confirmation in the particle colliders and telescopes of the world). They are not concerned, specifically, with the sense of mystery but rather with developing a rational, mathematical model of how the Universe behaves.

 

[Native]

From a sampling of this thread it looks like there is a continual inclusion of new information...at this point I wish I could read through the whole thread but that is too big of a bite to take all at once!
When you are done with this thread I invite you to consider restarting with smaller, more focused topics. I may have a lot to discuss with you.

I take your points here. It would indeed be fine to discuss ancient myths with somebody who have a little knowledge of this instead of what is going on here, except from some few serious posts.

I´ll think about ending this thread.

 

[Native]

It seems that one of the contentions on this thread revolves around the notion of the truth claim implicit in the mention of celestial objects in myths and how that might relate to our current "myth" of how the universe was created.

My own view is that it is clear that the fundamental division in early creation is very often that between the heavens and the earth. The heavens are above and far away. This implies a superior, broader perspective. Hence that which is superior in human nature is projected onto that heavenly sphere. Conversely we have the mystery of the stars and other heavenly objects which are clearly a source for the crafting of those myths that oral and literate culture have preserved.

Just as we look to variations in the cosmic background radiation for clues to the story of what happened in the very early universe, so to did the ancient story-tellers look at the stars and the river we call the Milky Way for clues as to the divine origin of creation. However, I think that from our much deeper factual understanding today we can say that the understanding of the ancient story-tellers was superficial in most cases.

Where that understanding still competes with our modern one is in the realm of realizing the limits of any rational system of understanding. In thinking somewhat rationally about the basic facts of what appears in the night sky, the ancient story tellers had a canvas on which to consider the mystery of the origin of humanity and of being itself. But again, with their limited interaction with this heavenly realm, their objective insight into the nature of that reality is limited.

Still I think that the Big Bang theory may depict a beginning and linear progression in the popular imagination, but this is likely to give way as science considers the multi-verse and the possibility of conjecturing as to the nature of a pre-Big Bang reality out of which this Universe has arisen. Scientists are following the data and also a lot of rigorous mathematics (with experimental confirmation in the particle colliders and telescopes of the world). They are not concerned, specifically, with the sense of mystery but rather with developing a rational, mathematical model of how the Universe behaves.

Thanks sealchan,
I´ll return on this later.

 

[gnostic]

Now you are falling into your own selfmade restricted trap again. You keep forgetting that you cannot compare the myths directly to the modern description of everything.

Of course the ancient Sun is just as much the Sun as the modern Sun, but it is described in symbols and symbolic language. And if you don´t take the mythical language seriously, you cannot understand the ancient myths at all.

I could elaborate on this too, but why should I since you refute the myths anyway?

If you have NO scientific or imagery knowledge of the Milky Way, how would you describe the outlooks of the Milky Way contours? Just think of this and you´ll get the answer why ancient cultures named and described the Milky Way in different human and animal images.

My points were that you are misusing the words “fact” and “factual”.

When you dealing with symbols, metaphors, similes or allegory, none of them are really concerned about “fact” or “factual”.

When myth makers use traditions or write them down, and compared the sun with Re and Atum, or Utu or Shamash, or Helios, or Sol, or the Milky Way with Hathor or Nut, or Hera’s milk, all these symbols that people gods or goddesses are not real or factual.

My points are, if you are going to use myths or mythological symbols, then please don’t use the words “facts” or “factual”, because we will get into endless arguments.

How about “archetype” or “spiritual reality”?

If you don’t like them, then you think of something else, just don’t use the terms fact or factual.

 

[Native]

When myth makers use traditions or write them down, and compared the sun with Re and Atum, or Utu or Shamash, or Helios, or Sol, or the Milky Way with Hathor or Nut, or Hera’s milk, all these symbols that people gods or goddesses are not real or factual.
My points are, if you are going to use myths or mythological symbols, then please don’t use the words “facts” or “factual”, because we will get into endless arguments.

So everything our ancestors observed and symbolized isn´t real facts? Not even Re = Sun and not the Milky Way contours? Everything old and mythical is just fairy tales in your mind, and you know why by now.

"When myth makers use traditions or write them down"? The real myth makers were our ancestors tradition for thousands of years and not alienated scholars with their writing pens!

Myths were orally traditions for thousands of years before they were written down by alienated scholars who didn´t understand the myths because they generally underestimated these. And the ancestors described and illustrated these astro-cosmo-myths with SYMBOLS of all kinds, but to you these are apparently just symbols without any meaning at all. In this sense, you too are alienated.

I understand why you have a huge interest in myths and apparently have a fine collection at home. Deep in your mind and soul you are longing for a natural world perception, but this longing is so unconscious that you cannot recognize and take natural informations in when you are in a sincere mythical discussion.

You are simply blowing up your mythical chances here

 

[Native]

It seems that one of the contentions on this thread revolves around the notion of the truth claim implicit in the mention of celestial objects in myths and how that might relate to our current "myth" of how the universe was created.

Yes that´s correct - and of course this is a huge topic to deal with.

My own view is that it is clear that the fundamental division in early creation is very often that between the heavens and the earth. The heavens are above and far away. This implies a superior, broader perspective. Hence that which is superior in human nature is projected onto that heavenly sphere. Conversely we have the mystery of the stars and other heavenly objects which are clearly a source for the crafting of those myths that oral and literate culture have preserved.

Agreed on this

Just as we look to variations in the cosmic background radiation for clues to the story of what happened in the very early universe, so to did the ancient story-tellers look at the stars and the river we call the Milky Way for clues as to the divine origin of creation. However, I think that from our much deeper factual understanding today we can say that the understanding of the ancient story-tellers was superficial in most cases.

I dont agree in this. The basic world understanding in ancient myth of creation is cyclical and not linear as in the BB-theories. In ancient myths of creation there are no beginning and no end, just eternal transformations and recycling of all matter.

And if you like to find superficial elements, you can find these in modern cosmology to your hearths content. I´m convinced that the ancient world picture is at the largest focused on the Milky Way and it´s cyclical and circuital formation process. If you compare this ancient view with modern cosmological science, they just have a "heavy black hole" in the middle of the galaxy where everything disappears for ever into a speculative mathematical singularity, apropos talking of superficial matters.

According to the cyclical approach in myths of creation there is a circuital motion in galaxies of plasmatic matters which are attracted into the galactic center where it all is transformed to starry and planetary spheres which is transported out from the galactic center and further around in this cyclic formation process. This explanation is of course more precise and descriptive than the modern "black hole singularity" where all logical explanation takes a full stop and then starts all kinds of strange and unnatural speculations.

And when modern cosmology was contradicted by the observation of the orbital motion in the Milky Way, scientists just invented "dark matter" in order to fit the galaxy to their skewed cosmological ideas. Adding metaphysical matters to a real observation is superficial beyond all boundaries.

The cosmological science began to go all wrong already with Newton and his strange gravity ideas and it became even worse after Einstein and his "curved space-time" and even worse again later on with the ideas of Big Bang theories and multiple Universes. All these speculative ideas are the result of looking at cosmos as a linear process instead of taking the natural and cyclical approaches.
In this sense modern cosmology has become highly speculative and superficial.

Still I think that the Big Bang theory may depict a beginning and linear progression in the popular imagination, but this is likely to give way as science considers the multi-verse and the possibility of conjecturing as to the nature of a pre-Big Bang reality out of which this Universe has arisen. Scientists are following the data and also a lot of rigorous mathematics (with experimental confirmation in the particle colliders and telescopes of the world). They are not concerned, specifically, with the sense of mystery but rather with developing a rational, mathematical model of how the Universe behaves.

Yes fine - but all this is in no wain as long as their basic understanding of a linear cosmos evolution is out of order.

 

[Native]

Yes fine - but all this is in no wain as long as their basic understanding of a linear cosmos evolution is out of order.

Quote
"In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe".

Even the western religious dogmatic ideas have had an influence on modern cosmology.

If this priest had knowledge of the cyclic world perception in ancient myths, he wouldn´t even have thought of such speculative nonsense of an expanding Universe from a center in the Universe.

Unfortunately, the Catholic church as well as other monotheistic religions, abandoned the ancient mythical descriptions of creation and after this, the western cosmological understanding is generally alienated from all natural formation processes.