Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[Native]

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

You have mentioned the Sumerian mythology a few times now and here you equal Utu/Shamash with the solar myths et all.

Quote:
Utu[a] later worshipped by East Semitic peoples as Shamash, is the ancient Mesopotamian god of the sun, justice, morality, and truth, and the twin brother of the goddess Inanna, the Queen of Heaven.

How do you explain that a mythical god supposedly can be symbolized as the Sun? When you are observing the Sun there is NO WAY you can get a male looking figure out of this sight.

And how do you explain Utu/Shamash´twin brother relationship with goddess Innanna?

 

[sealchan]

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.

Ok, this helps me to understand your perspective.

This claim above is less than obviously true to me. I've read a few creation myths in my time and never thought that they pointed at any kind of intuition of this kind. Certainly there are cosmologies (the Hindu one leaps to mind) where creation is understood as a cyclical thing. In my understanding the Big Bang theory doesn't contradict this model, it only humbly attempts to explain what the gathered evidence indicates.

Can you explain to me or point out a post number that I should read to help me see how you have come to this particular understanding of creation myths as a channel to accurate knowledge of the cosmos (as far as the Milky Way)?

 

[gnostic]

You have mentioned the Sumerian mythology a few times now and here you equal Utu/Shamash with the solar myths et all.

Quote:
Utu[a] later worshipped by East Semitic peoples as Shamash, is the ancient Mesopotamian god of the sun, justice, morality, and truth, and the twin brother of the goddess Inanna, the Queen of Heaven.

How do you explain that a mythical god supposedly can be symbolized as the Sun? When you are observing the Sun there is NO WAY you can get a male looking figure out of this sight.

And how do you explain Utu/Shamash´twin brother relationship with goddess Innanna?

Native, you are confusing everything.

I have never denied that ancient people, particularly those are religious or spiritual, will use symbols to represent some natural phenomena or natural events (eg sun, moon, seas, rivers, woods, fields, mountains, cities, etc), or some of the more abstract aspects (eg love, truth, law, etc) of reality.

But symbols used in religions and in myths, are only representations of what entities or beings (eg gods, nymphs, spirits, demons, etc) were thought to be real and behind the natural or abstract causes.

The mythological connections to nature are nothing more than superstitions.

So associating the sun with Re, Atum or Khepri, or with Utu, or with Helios, etc, are mainly based on superstitions, not actual knowledge of what the sun really is or do.

Yes, the ancient stargazers, may also recognise the patterns in the movement of sun, moon and stars, and development of calendar that divide the years into seasons, and recognising the solstices and equinoxes, and even able to predict sun rises and sunsets, but they still really don’t understand what the sun is, or the moon or the stars.

Yes, they may be able to see the band of the Milky Way, but they certainly didn’t know the Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy, because the angle they perceived this band, is on the plane of the galaxy flat disk.

What they really see is portion of Milky Way, local to our solar system: so they only see a portion of the Orion spur, portion of the Sagittarius spiral and portion of the Perseus arm.

No one in the past, particularly prehistoric and ancient times, can see the whole Milky Way; they cannot see all the spirals, they cannot see the central bulge of the Milky Way and they certainly cannot see all the stars in the Milky Way.

Your claim that the ancient Egyptian stargazers could see the “entire Milky Way” is a false claim, and it is based on your faulty assumptions that the “band” we see at night, represented the entire galaxy, which I have repeatedly told you is not true.

What are you writing here? You have a goddess Tefnut, running around as the Eye of Re in Nubia and Egypt, and killing men!?

Does goddesses run around on the Earth?

You haven't read the myth of Tefnut being the Eye of Re and her changing into a lioness?

Hathor did similar thing in the Book of Heavenly Cow, in the section known as Destruction of Mankind, where Hathor as the Eye of Re, changed into lioness and began killing men who rebelled against Re's rule. She only stopped killing men when she was tricked into getting drunk from a valley of red-dyed beer.

The myths are different, but similar enough to recognise that Hathor shared similar attributes as Tefnut.

Surely, you heard of Tefnut's myth?

 

[Native]

Can you explain to me or point out a post number that I should read to help me see how you have come to this particular understanding of creation myths as a channel to accurate knowledge of the cosmos (as far as the Milky Way)?

Just to resume:
#1 It´s my firm opinion that ancient cultures did not speak of a creation of the entire Universe, but "just" the Milky Way and the Solar System.
#2 When one can read of a "before or in the beginning" in several creation myths, this only speaks of the cosmological pre-conditions of the creation of the Milky Way.
#3 The cycle of life is specifically mentioned in the question of "where we come from and where we go to".
#4 This cycle is also described in the "Book of death" and in the Egyptian initiation rite.

I´ll forward you to the official description of the Norse Mythology where the myth of Ragnarok especially speaks of how everything once created still undergoes changes of formation. Ragnarok is popularly interpreted as "the end of everything" but this is wrong. It just speaks of eternal changes.

Norse Cosmology - The Creation story of the Milky Way and Solar System.

Ragnarok Myth - Myth of eternal cyclical changes.

Of course anyone can have problems when dealing with the symbolism in ancient myths, but just keep your focus on the Milky Way connection in myths.

You are also welcome to read my interpretation story and some illustrations of the Norse Myths here

Enjoy and feel welcome to ask questions and give respons.

 

[Native]

Native, you are confusing everything.

I have never denied that ancient people, particularly those are religious or spiritual, will use symbols to represent some natural phenomena or natural events (eg sun, moon, seas, rivers, woods, fields, mountains, cities, etc), or some of the more abstract aspects (eg love, truth, law, etc) of reality.

I newer said you denies this. The problem I´ve pointed out is this:

But symbols used in religions and in myths, are only representations of what entities or beings (eg gods, nymphs, spirits, demons, etc) were thought to be real and behind the natural or abstract causes. The mythological connections to nature are nothing more than superstitions.

You are accepting the use of symbolism but to you it´s all just superstitions.

And it is so to you because you, for instants, read that Utu/Shamash represent the Sun, and you don´t even ask yourself how on Earth this imagery of a male figure can be compared to represent the Sun.

Of course you cannot observe the Sun and get a male looking figure out of this, can you? So the Utu/Shamash god must represent another celestial image which can be imagined by humans as a male figure on the night Sky.

There is nothing superstitious in this at all. It´s just a question of connecting the correct myths to the correct celestial objects and motions.

You haven't read the myth of Tefnut being the Eye of Re and her changing into a lioness.
Hathor did similar thing in the Book of Heavenly Cow, in the section known as Destruction of Mankind, where Hathor as the Eye of Re, changed into lioness and began killing men who rebelled against Re's rule. She only stopped killing men when she was tricked into getting drunk from a valley of red-dyed beer.
The myths are different, but similar enough to recognise that Hathor shared similar attributes as Tefnut.

My question here was about your "Tefnut running around in the geographical Nubia" which is hard to do for a goddess who resides in the Sky, don´t you think? Don´t believe in ignorant scholars and authors who confuses the myths.

The Utu/Shamash god derives from the galactic image of the northern celestial Sky and of course Utu/Shamash have nothing to do with the Sun but everything to do with the dimmer light of the Milky Way mythical contours/figures. Authors and scholars simple confuses the fainter light of the Milky Way mythology with "the Sun light" because they have no clues of the cosmological extents in the ancient creation myths.

Read and watch more here

 

[Native]

Subject: Scholarly confusions in Myths

All kinds of scholarly confusions are flourishing in books and encyclopedia. By, for instants, reading the myth of the Sumerian god Marduk and his female consort Sarpanit very funny inconsistencies can be found all over the places.

#1 The Marduk "family" descriptions is taken as personal and historical connections instead of cosmological connections.
#2 Marduk is astrologically taken to be compared with planet Jupiter which is nonsense when reading the mythical contents and contexts of Marduk.
#3 Marduk is said to have participated "in a civil war" in spite his presence in the Sky.

Comments:
How can a god of creation be compared to planet Jupiter? How can a celestial god participate in a civil war on the Earth?

About Mardus consort, Sarpanit:
In Babylonian religion, Sarpanit (alternately Sarpanitu, Zarpanit, Zarpandit, Zerpanitum, Zerbanitu, or Zirbanit)[1] is a mother goddess and the consort of the chief god, Marduk.[2] Her name means "the shining one",[3] and she is sometimes associated with the planet Venus. By a play on words her name was interpreted as zēr-bānītu, or "creatress of seed", and is thereby associated with the goddess Aruru, who, according to Babylonian myth, created mankind.[4]

Comment:
How can a mother goddess be associated with planet Venus? Has planet Venus the ability to be a mother goddess? Pure nonsense!

"Her marriage with Marduk was celebrated annually at New Year in Babylon. She was worshipped via the rising moon, and was often depicted as being pregnant. She is also known as Erua. She may be the same as Gamsu, Ishtar, and/or Bêlit.[5]

Comment:
How can a pregnant mother goddess be connected to the rising Moon? Is the Moon a mother goddess?

The mythical Mother Goddesses are directly connected to the dimmer light of the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere. The circle with the spokes on the female imagined figure below marks the Sagittarius constellation area of the central Milky Way . The mother goddesses are simply a mythical imagery of the creation in the Milky Way.

When looking at the contours of the Milky Way. seemingly revolving around the Earth celestial axis, the Milky Way contours shows up a crescent figure which scholars and authors have confused to be the Moon, hence the confused scholarly interpretation above of "she was worshipped via the rising moon". Of course when scholars and authors have no clues of the crescent Milky Way figure, their only other interpretative option is the crescent Moon. Again pure nonsense.

And of course: " . . . and was often depicted as being pregnant",

This "pregnancy" is the logical symbolism of a Mother Goddess who give birth to everything, i.e. forms and creates everything in the ancient known world, the Milky Way.

 

[Native]

OBS: Note that I am equally critical regarding the scholarly interpretations of ancient myths as I am of the Modern Cosmology.

 

[gnostic]

The mythical Mother Goddesses are directly connected to the dimmer light of the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere. The circle with the spokes on the female imagined figure below marks the Sagittarius constellation area of the central Milky Way . The mother goddesses are simply a mythical imagery of the creation in the Milky Way.

When looking at the contours of the Milky Way. seemingly revolving around the Earth celestial axis, the Milky Way contours shows up a crescent figure which scholars and authors have confused to be the Moon, hence the confused scholarly interpretation above of "she was worshipped via the rising moon". Of course when scholars and authors have no clues of the crescent Milky Way figure, their only other interpretative option is the crescent Moon. Again pure nonsense.

The band and contour of the Milky Way, is due to the Orion spur, where our Solar System is situated, and since the Orion spur seemed to be on the plane of the Milky Way’s disk, the spur is surrounded, back (a portion of the Perseus spiral) and front ( a portion of the Sagittarius spiral), by two longer spirals than the Orion spur.

That is the reason why the Earth’s sky, both northern and southern hemispheres, the contours seemed to encircle the sky.

You are putting too much emphasis on what you “believe” the ancient Egyptians know about the Milky Way, but it is all based on your clumsy interpretations of the myths and your lack of understanding of modern astronomy.

My question here was about your "Tefnut running around in the geographical Nubia" which is hard to do for a goddess who resides in the Sky, don´t you think?

Good grief.

Tefnut has several different attributes, as do Hathor, but you are still think that Egyptians have to be consistent.

Hathor can be goddess of sky, and the Milky Way can be attributed to her. But she can be also goddess who lead the soul in the Netherworld.

She can also be goddess of love and of fertility, and the mother goddess. She was goddess of music and dance. None of these roles have to do with sky or the Milky Way.

What does music have to do with the Milky Way? Nothing.

What does love have to do with the Milky Way or with the sky? Absolutely nothing.

Now you are doing the same thing Tefnut.

In one myth, Tefnut was born through Re’s spit. Here, her attribute as the goddess of myth. In another version, she was born along with her brother Shu, when Re sneezed or blew his nose.

But in the version, where she was identified with the Eye of Re, she was sun goddess, where she can also appeared as a lioness or lion-headed goddess with the sun disk.

These symbols, the lioness and the Eye of Re, are exactly identical to that of Hathor.

My point is, as the goddess of moisture, Tefnut have nothing to do with the sky or celestial. Her celestial and solar role is only Tefnut is connected to the Eye and when she is in her lioness form.

There are several different versions of myths concerning Tefnut, just as there number of different versions to the Hathor myth, and not all of the myth about Hathor connect her to the Milky Way. In most myths, regarding to Hathor, the Milky Way is completely omitted.

And btw, you keep forgetting that I do my own reading of Egyptian mythological literature. I don’t relied on scholars to interpret myths for me.

You are the one, who did comparative mythology subject, not me.

Stop putting your failures to understand myths on me.

 

[sealchan]

Just to resume:
#1 It´s my firm opinion that ancient cultures did not speak of a creation of the entire Universe, but "just" the Milky Way and the Solar System.
#2 When one can read of a "before or in the beginning" in several creation myths, this only speaks of the cosmological pre-conditions of the creation of the Milky Way.
#3 The cycle of life is specifically mentioned in the question of "where we come from and where we go to".
#4 This cycle is also described in the "Book of death" and in the Egyptian initiation rite.

I´ll forward you to the official description of the Norse Mythology where the myth of Ragnarok especially speaks of how everything once created still undergoes changes of formation. Ragnarok is popularly interpreted as "the end of everything" but this is wrong. It just speaks of eternal changes.

Norse Cosmology - The Creation story of the Milky Way and Solar System.

Ragnarok Myth - Myth of eternal cyclical changes.

Of course anyone can have problems when dealing with the symbolism in ancient myths, but just keep your focus on the Milky Way connection in myths.

You are also welcome to read my interpretation story and some illustrations of the Norse Myths here

Enjoy and feel welcome to ask questions and give respons.

I've read through the above articles and through some of your interpretation of the same.

I think your interpretation shows the same sort of subtle thinking that I enjoy in my own studies of myth. Where subjective knowledge based on the senses ends and what I would call intuitive knowledge begins is hard to say. Intuitiion has the uncanny ability to perceive something "deeper" about how the Universe is made than what is immediately apparent in the sensory experience of the world. That perception says as much about the mind itself as the reality it is addressing.

Now a creative mind, such as yours, can see in modern science some of the same intuitive connections between its own world view and that of the myths. At some level of understanding, certainly, the human mind hasn't changed over time and its ability to discriminate differences, identify similarities and experience meaning in those cognitive actions can be understood to be fundamentally similar. Hence, knowing something about the human mind/brain/body tells you something about the world that that imperfectly reflects.

My general belief is that myths are the motifs of dreams which emerge for the myth-maker and are recognized by their audience. As the myths intermingle and the great epics arose, the most universal themes are teased out. As above so below can also be understood as as within, so without. That this is deeply true is itself a source of wonder.

In my study of dreams I have had cause to understand that the symbols in the dreams sometimes tell us something about the structure of the brain and/or organization of the mind. Trees can show us a map analogous to the shape of the nervous system. Two chambers connected by a difficult passage may reflect the hemispherical separation of the cortex. Single dream characters vs a great multitude of dream characters may represent a level of personality from the ego down to the actions and influences of the countless neurons.

Certainly in Norse mythology there is awareness of one's natural surroundings but this is colored also by the instinctual needs of the knower. Our social nature causes us to personify the impersonal, but mysterious. In the distant, high heavens we see the origin of what is pure and perfect as a model for the actuality on earth of what is soiled and confused.

So I think that your claims about our modern view and the mythic one are valid...so long as you might say that all such views are, as it were, arranged in a great hoop or circle in the center of which is the ultimate truth and mystery. Now the scientific perspective has its obvious values as it will utterly transform our degrees of freedom in the physical realm. But as the myths utilize the same instrument with which we measure all things, the human mind, they also show us the one-sidedness of any metaphysical conclusions we might draw from scientific perspectives.

I can also see in the Norse mythology many of the components of my outline of the framework of "world epic". I may add Norse myth as a fourth item in my "concordance". My main exposure to Norse myth is via Wagner's Ring Cycle. There I see the themes of Succession as a gradual corruption, a great war (as in Ragnarok)...and now the flood and perhaps the creation myth as being shared. Maybe Loki is the tricksy uncle.

 

[sealchan]

Would we all agree that in myth we find inspiration drawn not just from night sky observations but from all dimensions of the experience of life itself?

 

[Native]

The band and contour of the Milky Way, is due to the Orion spur, where our Solar System is situated, and since the Orion spur seemed to be on the plane of the Milky Way’s disk, the spur is surrounded, back (a portion of the Perseus spiral) and front ( a portion of the Sagittarius spiral), by two longer spirals than the Orion spur.

That is the reason why the Earth’s sky, both northern and southern hemispheres, the contours seemed to encircle the sky.

I don´t care at all with your scientific explanations. We are dealing with the mythical language here.

My point is, as the goddess of moisture, Tefnut have nothing to do with the sky or celestial. Her celestial and solar role is only Tefnut is connected to the Eye and when she is in her lioness form.

Of course she has - but you can´t make the connections because you fails to read "moisture" as in "fog, cloud" which very nicely describe the grey/white contours of the Milky Way (River)

There are several different versions of myths concerning Tefnut, just as there number of different versions to the Hathor myth, and not all of the myth about Hathor connect her to the Milky Way. In most myths, regarding to Hathor, the Milky Way is completely omitted.

So you even don´t believe that the mythical images of Egyptian goddesses resembled the Milky Way?

And btw, you keep forgetting that I do my own reading of Egyptian mythological literature. I don’t relied on scholars to interpret myths for me.

So why are you constantly referring to scholarly interpretations which are total bunkers? And at the same time you simply states myths (of creation) to be just myths which has no astronomical or cosmological meanings.

 

[Native]

Would we all agree that in myth we find inspiration drawn not just from night sky observations but from all dimensions of the experience of life itself?

I read your thoughts in #429

The genuine mythical/religious experiences isn´t just personal matters, but in fact Collective Matters, which is the reason that the numerous ancient stories of creation basically are very similar. The Creation itself speaks to sensitive individuals all over the World and it STILL does today.

For thousands of years, our ancestors have observed both physical and spiritual facts about everything and this huge empirical and global knowledge is still available both in understanding the ancient symbolism and in personal inspirations directly from the well of wisdom.

BTW: Regarding "cyclical symbols": The Egyptian Scarab beetle is an excellent way of describing the creation as a cyclic formation. (Don´t be confused of the usual scholarly solar connection in the explanation. It really describes the cyclic formation in our Milky Way)

By having this cyclical view of the creation/formation, the ancient way of looking at the creation has a huge advantage compared to the linear time scale perception in modern cosmology and I´m sure that this linear way has lead cosmological scientists far astray in all kinds of unnatural speculations from which a serious shift of paradigm is needed in order to progress in the future.

 

[Native]

Subject: Babylonian astronomy and cosmology

Of course, our ancestors had factual astronomical and cosmological knowledge.

Excerpt:
"Nibiru (also transliterated Neberu, Nebiru) is a term in the Akkadian language, translating to "crossing" or "point of transition", especially of rivers,[1] i.e. river crossings or ferry-boats. In Babylonian astronomy, the term Nibiru (in cuneiform spelled dné-bé-ru or MULni-bi-rum) refers to the equinox and the astronomical objects associated with it".

Comment: The scholarly interpretation and description of the astronomical conditions results in different kinds of confusions because scholars don´t have a natural understanding of the astronomical conditions. "Niberu" has nothing to do with the equinox.

Excerpt:
"Nibiru was considered the seat of the summus deus who shepherds the stars like sheep, in Babylon identified with Marduk. The establishment of the nibiru point is described in tablet 5 of the creation epic Enûma Eliš: “When Marduk fixed the locations (manzazu) of Nibiru, Enlil and Ea in the sky".[2]"

Comment: Nibiru cannot be identified directly with Marduk but only "connected with Marduk". The big question here is then: Who is Marduk and where in the Sky can he be found.

The Enûma Eliš states:

"Nibiru is [Marduk's] star, which he made appear in the heavens... [130-131] The stars of heaven, let him [Nibiru] set their course; let him shepherd all the gods like sheep.[3]



Nibiru is described more closely on a complete cuneiform tablet:[4]

Nibiru, which is said to have occupied the passageways of heaven and earth, because everyone above and below asks Nibiru if they cannot find the passage. Nibiru is Marduk's star which the gods in heaven caused to be visible. Nibiru stands as a post at the turning point. The others say of Nibiru the post: "The one who crosses the middle of the sea (Tiamat) without calm, may his name be Nibiru, for he takes up the center of it." The path of the stars of the sky should be kept unchanged".

Comment: "Nibiru is Marduk's star which the gods in heaven caused to be visible. Nibiru stands as a post at the turning point". This explains precisely what Nibiru stands for: The Earth celestial pole(s) area around which, everything revolves in the night Sky. Then the god Marduk must be found close to the celestial axis on the northern hemisphere and then Tiamat resides on the southern hemisphere, (The Underworld)

"Böhl calls the text "objectively the most difficult passage, although it has been handed down in its entirety. The Nibiru tablet does not provide any essential help for the clarification."[5]".

Comment: Franz Marius Theodor Böhl was professor in Assyriology. STILL he had problems in interpreting this simple mythical/astronomical information. As said all over the places, scholars who have no clues of the astronomical and cosmological conditions and scenarios, misinterprets the mythical knowledge.

"In the enumerations, Nibiru is mentioned at different astronomical locations in conjunction with the positions of stars and planets,[2] mostly as the "star of Marduk", however, the various stars or planets were not subject to any fixed interpretation. For example, the "star of Ea" was described at various "revelation spots" including Vela, Fomalhaut, and Venus. Similar interpretations were made for the other "stars of the gods", so multiple celestial coordinates must be considered.[2] Nibiru has been associated with the area of Libra. The Nibiru constellation rose in the month of Tišritum, around autumnal equinox. However Nibiru was also a name for the planet Jupiter[6] when observed in the month of Tišritum. In the MUL.APIN, Nibiru is identified as Jupiter".

Comment: In this sentence, Nibiru, the polar axis symbol, is confused with planet Venus and planet Jupiter.

"When the stars of Enlil have been finished, one big star – although its light is dim – divides the sky in half and stands there: that is, the star of Marduk (MUL dAMAR.UD), Nibiru (né-bé-ru), Jupiter (MULSAG.ME.GAR); it keeps changing its position and crosses the sky"

Comment: Huge scholarly confusions are going on here, The " . . one big (dim) star", isn´t a star. A star cannot "divide the Sky in half" . As Nibiru represents the polar axis point this doesn´t move at all and subsequently Marduk must be a figure which keep changing its motion in the Sky around this celestial polar location.

That is: The Marduk god figure turns around the Earth celestial Nibiru pole - just as illustrated on the Star Atlas image below:

Marduk/Jupiter gods resembles the (dim) Milky Way male looking contours on the northern hemisphere where this figure seemingly revolves around the celestial (Nibiru) pole as marked with a circle with four spokes. In some cultures the celestial axis is marked and symbolized as a circle, a circle with spokes and as a single star as in the quoted Nibiru symbolism above.

Professor Bøhl, professor in Assyriology, and other scholars and authors without any astronomical and cosmological knowledge of the ancient mythical symbolism, of course are disqualified as reliable mythical interpreters.

Of course, scholars also interpret Marduk/Shamash and their cultural like as "Sun deities" because they have no clues of the mythology of the Light Milky Way contours.

On the other hand, scientific scholars and authors are equally disqualified to judge mythical textst and symbolism if not taking the ancient myths as astronomical and cosmological knowledge.

Watch more here

 

[sealchan]

I read your thoughts in #429

The genuine mythical/religious experiences isn´t just personal matters, but in fact Collective Matters, which is the reason that the numerous ancient stories of creation basically are very similar. The Creation itself speaks to sensitive individuals all over the World and it STILL does today.

For thousands of years, our ancestors have observed both physical and spiritual facts about everything and this huge empirical and global knowledge is still available both in understanding the ancient symbolism and in personal inspirations directly from the well of wisdom.

BTW: Regarding "cyclical symbols": The Egyptian Scarab beetle is an excellent way of describing the creation as a cyclic formation. (Don´t be confused of the usual scholarly solar connection in the explanation. It really describes the cyclic formation in our Milky Way)

By having this cyclical view of the creation/formation, the ancient way of looking at the creation has a huge advantage compared to the linear time scale perception in modern cosmology and I´m sure that this linear way has lead cosmological scientists far astray in all kinds of unnatural speculations from which a serious shift of paradigm is needed in order to progress in the future.

Ah, so I see you are coming to have this sense that these mythic perspectives can inform us, at a paradigmatic level, about how to expand our modern scientific understanding. I would insert into your chain of reason an understanding of the human brain.

 

[Native]

Ah, so I see you are coming to have this sense that these mythic perspectives can inform us, at a paradigmatic level, about how to expand our modern scientific understanding. I would insert into your chain of reason an understanding of the human brain.

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.

 

[Native]

SUBJECT: ACADEMIC CONFUSIONS IN MYTHOLOGY

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:

#1 The Milky Way central Light as symbols of the Sun.
#2 The Milky Way rotation axis as the Earth celestial axis.
#3 The Milky Way divided hemispheres crescent contours with the crescent Moon.
#4 The Milky Way deities as Lunar deities.
#5 The Milky Way deities as deities of the Sun.
#6 The Milky Way ship/chariot as vehicles of the Sun.
#7 The Earth axis polar symbols as a Sun Wheel.
#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.

When reading the ancient myths, it is of course important to read the entire content and context of a certain god or goddess and se if this fits logically and naturally to the mentioned astronomical and cosmological objects and it´s motions. Otherwise both the myth and its astronomical informations gets skewed into pure nonsense.

#8 Comment. "The Roman confusion":
When the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, they had to abandon their Pantheon deities and accept the Christian "Invisible One God". But, as a kind of remembrance, they named the ancient 5 known planets with the names of the Pantheon deities, which of course has caused lots of interpretative confusions, where Milky Way deities are ascribed to planets and thus distorting the myths and the astronomical connections.

I´ve been a member of the "Thunderbolts.info Forum", where myths are compared and used in order to describe a very strange theory of "Symbols of an Alien Sky" and an ancient "polar configuration", where some planets according to an interpretation of myths by Immanuel Velikovsky and David Talbott, supposedly once should have "hovered over the Earth celestial axis in a line on the northern hemisphere".

In this theory, ancient deities of creation are taken literary as being the planets, which of course is totally bunkers and you can follow my critical objections to this mythical confusions here: "The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP". For having this critique of the strange ideas and confused myths, I´ve been excluded twice from the Forum.

Anyway, if we all become aware of the confusions mentioned above, it should be possible to have a common ground for our mythical discussions.

 

[gnostic]

SUBJECT: ACADEMIC CONFUSIONS IN MYTHOLOGY

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:

#1 The Milky Way central Light as symbols of the Sun.
#2 The Milky Way rotation axis as the Earth celestial axis.
#3 The Milky Way divided hemispheres crescent contours with the crescent Moon.
#4 The Milky Way deities as Lunar deities.
#5 The Milky Way deities as deities of the Sun.
#6 The Milky Way ship/chariot as vehicles of the Sun.
#7 The Earth axis polar symbols as a Sun Wheel.
#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.

When reading the ancient myths, it is of course important to read the entire content and context of a certain god or goddess and se if this fits logically and naturally to the mentioned astronomical and cosmological objects and it´s motions. Otherwise both the myth and its astronomical informations gets skewed into pure nonsense.

#8 Comment. "The Roman confusion":
When the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, they had to abandon their Pantheon deities and accept the Christian "Invisible One God". But, as a kind of remembrance, they named the ancient 5 known planets with the names of the Pantheon deities, which of course has caused lots of interpretative confusions, where Milky Way deities are ascribed to planets and thus distorting the myths and the astronomical connections.

I´ve been a member of the "Thunderbolts.info Forum", where myths are compared and used in order to describe a very strange theory of "Symbols of an Alien Sky" and an ancient "polar configuration", where some planets according to an interpretation of myths by Immanuel Velikovsky and David Talbott, supposedly once should have "hovered over the Earth celestial axis in a line on the northern hemisphere".

In this theory, ancient deities of creation are taken literary as being the planets, which of course is totally bunkers and you can follow my critical objections to this mythical confusions here: "The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP". For having this critique of the strange ideas and confused myths, I´ve been excluded twice from the Forum.

Anyway, if we all become aware of the confusions mentioned above, it should be possible to have a common ground for our mythical discussions.

Sorry, but the confusions here, are your own.

There are many myths, and there are many versions of any one of those versions...and with it come so many different varieties of interpretations...and that much is given.

All you are doing, Native is just providing some interpretations of your own.

And quite frankly, I really don’t care if you have interpretations, because everyone, including yourself, are entitled to their personal opinions, on any myth.

So, I have no problem with you having your own interpretations and your own opinions.

What I do have problems with your weak assertions that you have “facts” or that your interpretations are “factual”, and that you believe everyone else are wrong.

This is where the line is drawn, and I have to say, you don’t have facts, just your personal opinions and interpretations on those myths that you think and believe to agree with your flawed and twisted version of astronomy/science.

To have facts, you need multiple conclusive evidences, not your logic, not interpretations, and certainly not belief and opinions.

You have mentioned Velikovsky and Talbott to say how their interpretations to be wrong.

Perhaps, they are wrong, and their works are probably rubbish, so perhaps you are right regarding their works. But I don’t know these guys, don’t know their works, and quite frankly I don’t give a damn about their interpretations of any myth.

I do not support Velikovsky and Talbott, nor am I against Velikovsky and Talbott, since they are not here (at RF), so I am not here to argue works I don’t know about and I am not here to argue with people who are not actively contribute to this forum, or in this thread you have started.

Bringing up these so-called experts or scholars, whom I don’t read, and therefore can neither agree, nor disagree, are nothing more than smoke screens and straw man.

I don’t give a damn if their interpretations of myths are not aligned with astronomical knowledge of the Milky Way.

My argument and my disagreement are with your points, and with your interpretations, not by some quacks whom I have not heard of.

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

 

[sealchan]

SUBJECT: ACADEMIC CONFUSIONS IN MYTHOLOGY

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:

#1 The Milky Way central Light as symbols of the Sun.
#2 The Milky Way rotation axis as the Earth celestial axis.
#3 The Milky Way divided hemispheres crescent contours with the crescent Moon.
#4 The Milky Way deities as Lunar deities.
#5 The Milky Way deities as deities of the Sun.
#6 The Milky Way ship/chariot as vehicles of the Sun.
#7 The Earth axis polar symbols as a Sun Wheel.
#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.

When reading the ancient myths, it is of course important to read the entire content and context of a certain god or goddess and se if this fits logically and naturally to the mentioned astronomical and cosmological objects and it´s motions. Otherwise both the myth and its astronomical informations gets skewed into pure nonsense.

#8 Comment. "The Roman confusion":
When the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, they had to abandon their Pantheon deities and accept the Christian "Invisible One God". But, as a kind of remembrance, they named the ancient 5 known planets with the names of the Pantheon deities, which of course has caused lots of interpretative confusions, where Milky Way deities are ascribed to planets and thus distorting the myths and the astronomical connections.

I´ve been a member of the "Thunderbolts.info Forum", where myths are compared and used in order to describe a very strange theory of "Symbols of an Alien Sky" and an ancient "polar configuration", where some planets according to an interpretation of myths by Immanuel Velikovsky and David Talbott, supposedly once should have "hovered over the Earth celestial axis in a line on the northern hemisphere".

In this theory, ancient deities of creation are taken literary as being the planets, which of course is totally bunkers and you can follow my critical objections to this mythical confusions here: "The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP". For having this critique of the strange ideas and confused myths, I´ve been excluded twice from the Forum.

Anyway, if we all become aware of the confusions mentioned above, it should be possible to have a common ground for our mythical discussions.

Are you saying that over time academics and even ancient thinkers introduce confusion regarding the cosmological knowledge in the "original" stories through their creative mis- or re- interpretation?

 

[Native]

Sorry, but the confusions here, are your own.

How can you know this since for you, "myths are just myths", regardless of how often the Sun or the Milky Way clearly are mentioned in myths?

All you are doing, Native is just providing some interpretations of your own.

How can you know if you don´t take myths seriously and compare the numerous cultural and collective myths?

What I do have problems with your weak assertions that you have “facts” or that your interpretations are “factual”, and that you believe everyone else are wrong.

How can you know what is facts or not in myths since for you "myths are just myths"?

To have facts, you need multiple conclusive evidences, not your logic, not interpretations, and certainly not belief and opinions.

How can you know if "myths are just myths" for you?

You have mentioned Velikovsky and Talbott to say how their interpretations to be wrong.
Perhaps, they are wrong, and their works are probably rubbish, so perhaps you are right regarding their works. But I don’t know these guys, don’t know their works, and quite frankly I don’t give a damn about their interpretations of any myth.

A serious debater would have investigated the contents in the link instead of "not giving a damn".

I do not support Velikovsky and Talbott, nor am I against Velikovsky and Talbott, since they are not here (at RF), so I am not here to argue works I don’t know about and I am not here to argue with people who are not actively contribute to this forum, or in this thread you have started.

To link to further sources is a normal procedure in discussions. This is called "research". You should try this sometime.

I don’t give a damn if their interpretations of myths are not aligned with astronomical knowledge of the Milky Way.

More damn statements Yes I already know that you don´t give a damn if mythical interpretations aren´t aligned with their astronomical objects. But of course: Generally you give a damn about myths since for you "myths are just myths".

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

How can you know since you don´t know and care about the mythical language and the astronomical and cosmological connections?

 

[Native]

Are you saying that over time academics and even ancient thinkers introduce confusion regarding the cosmological knowledge in the "original" stories through their creative mis- or re- interpretation?

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.