Evidences against Standard Cosmology

[Native]

You failed to respond to that. By ignoring it, you could continue to make the same silly argument that the Water Flood - Ark stories are implausible and therefore the Genesis writers must have been referring to the milky way even though you said the Genesis writers had lost sight of celestial knowledge of the ancients.
We can clearly see that you have confused yourself thoroughly.

I´ve never said the Genesis writers have referred to the Milky Way! I´ve several times said they SHOULD HAVE REFERRED to the Milky Way and NOT to a terrestrial flood.

We can clearly see that you have confused yourself thoroughly.

Not at all. It´s you who don´t connect the logical arguments and dots.

 

[Native]

Get ready for more strawman arguments on the way, in response to what you just said.

 

[night912]

This is because you´re following what is stated to be the truth by scholars who don´t have a clue of the mythical contents and it´s cosmological extension.

You´re simply following authorities and "group thinkers" without giving it much independent thinking.

How about you answer what I asked instead of dodging it.

Wow. The tone of this discussion suddenly changed, quite drastically. Let me guess, you finally realized the reason why your strawman arguments had no effect on my position, nothing like how you anticipated it to have happened. That's a common result amongst those who incorrectly assumed the position of their opponent

 

[Native]

Let me guess, you finally realized the reason why your strawman arguments had no effect on my position, nothing like how you anticipated it to have happened.

What makes you think I´m taking your strawman guesswork seriously by now?

 

[Native]

Subject: Back to the initial Op thread "Evidences against standard cosmology."

The physics anomaly no one talks about: What's up with those neutrinos?

Sabines abstract:
20 years ago the LSND experiment at Los Alamos detected a strange anomaly in neutrino oscillations. In 2018 the Fermilab experiment MiniBooNE that was checking on this observation saw it too. The anomaly is above the discovery threshold. What does this mean for the standard model of particle physics?

(Correction to what I say at 1 mins 55 seconds: "lepton" should have been "charged lepton" (in both instances). Correction to what I say at 3 mins 33 seconds: It was the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2015 (as you see on the screenshot) not (as I mistakenly said) in 2011.)

Content:
0:00 Intro
1:34 Reasons to like neutrinos
6:00 The LSND and MiniBooNe anomaly
8:45 What does it mean?

My comment to this video content:
In my humble opinion, the Standard Model physicists have totally lost their way by their focus on particles instead of the electromagnetic (EM) qualities in elements where all atoms reacts differently from different EM charges, frequencies, ranges and polarities in the four elementary states.

 

[ecco]

I am stunned! After all the discussions so far, in a weird way you come to the same conclusion as me:
There was no biblical flood. Yes the writers/interpretators took tales of localized floods and turned them into a lesson about their vengeful God.

No! I dot not come to the same conclusion as you. You alternately said the Genesis writers ignored the celestial connections and alternately said their flood was the milky way. I have said neither of those two things. Understand English well enough to know that is a fact.

Well, how do you then explain this biblical water to have covered the entire Earth high above the mountains?

Because they wanted to make a strong statement about their vengeful god. Because they believed this actually happened. Need I remind you -again- that there are people right here on RF that also believe it?

The only explanation which fits both your and my perception is if you take the mythical Milky Way River into consideration and tell yourself that this white Milky Way band contains lots of stars which are localized high above the Earth.

Nonsense. Read and try to understand what I wrote.

Then you have a mythical/religious river/flood which is running OVER the and around the entire Earth - as I´ve stated several times now.

More nonsense. How many times doyouneed to be reminded that a river is not a flood (although they sometimes overflow their banks.).

The nonsense in your head derives from not being able to read and connect the mythical language and symbolism:

The Milky Way figure is imagined and symbolized by our ancestors as a river running in the Sky and that´s all there is to it.

It doesn't matter what some people believed when they contemplated the Milky Way. What matters is what the Genesis writers were referring to and trying to communicate.

 

[night912]

What makes you think I´m taking your strawman guesswork seriously by now?

What strawman?

 

[Native]

How many times doyouneed to be reminded that a river is not a flood (although they sometimes overflow their banks.).

Ecco, you are nitpicking on the flood/river definitions and fail to differ between terrestrial and celestial matters in Genesis.

A celestial mythical river is not a flood and a flood which covers the entire Earth and it´s mountains is simply rubbish on all accounts!

1) The ancient interpreters and writers of the Genesis failed to understand the mythical symbolism of the celestial Milky Way River and took it as a terrestrial flood.
2) Later historic interpreters, scholars and authors have failed to understand the astronomical and cosmological scenario in Genesis, despite lots of modern discoveries and observations.
3) They´ve simple failed to grasp the logical connections between cosmology in ancient mythology and modern astronomical and cosmological science.

It doesn't matter what some people believed when they contemplated the Milky Way. What matters is what the Genesis writers were referring to and trying to communicate.

I don´t think you´re aware of what you´re saying here. You discard the entire global thousands of years human cultural ideas of their astronomical and cosmological world picture - and then you rely everything on the literal interpretations in Genesis.

I´m tired getting nowhere with you in this matter, so be in peace with your believes.

 

[Native]

Subject: Stars and Galaxies are formed in electromagnetic Z-Pinches.
The gravitational perception of formation is pure guesswork..

Authors abstract:
"Independent researcher, Stuart Talbott, deconstructs the standard model of gravitational collapse and mass accretion to create stars over eons of time—versus—the EU model of the electromagnetic phenomenon called the Z-pinch, also known as the Bennett pinch, as the force governing the rapid formation of stars.

Hannes Alfvén, who predicted stars form by Z-pinches along vast networks of filaments, like beads on a string, wrote... ”important fields of research, including the formation of stars, are based on a neglect of Bennett’s discovery...present-day students in astrophysics hear nothing about it".

Alfvén’s statement about students unfamiliar with the concept of electric currents in space is as true today as it was decades ago. Nevertheless, science is an ongoing endeavor, and by its intrinsic nature makes accurate the prediction that inevitably, 'the truth will out".

What are your thoughts of this video content?

 

[ecco]

I´ve never said the Genesis writers have referred to the Milky Way! I´ve several times said they SHOULD HAVE REFERRED to the Milky Way and NOT to a terrestrial flood.

Yes, you did...Post #35. It was long ago, maybe you forgot.

The myth of a Great Flood belongs to the Milky Way symbolism where the white Milky Way band was symbolized as a CELESTIAL RIVER running OVER the Earth and not a huge flood running ON the Earth.

The Great Flood myth is a celestial mythical telling of the Milky Way and that´s the reason it is told all over the World as the Milky Way are observable all over the world.

"The Great Flood myth (of Genesis) is a celestial mythical telling of the Milky Way"

That's what you wrote! You changed your mind later on. That is your problem.

 

[Native]

That's what you wrote! You changed your mind later on.

Obviously you are in the wilderness because you cannot differ between what I mean about the failed interpretation in Genesis and how it really should be interpretated.

I said above that:

A celestial mythical river is not a flood and a flood which covers the entire Earth and it´s mountains is simply rubbish on all accounts!

Apparently this is as much to large analytic and logical challenge for you, so just forget about it.

 

[joelr]

cI like your general "cosmic ocean" approach to these questions as this concept can be found in several other creation stories.

Quote from - Creation myth - Wikipedia - "In creation from chaos myths, initially there is nothing but a formless, shapeless expanse. In these stories the word "chaos" means "disorder", and this formless expanse, which is also sometimes called a void or an abyss, contains the material with which the created world will be made. Chaos may be described as having the consistency of vapor or water, dimensionless, and sometimes salty or muddy".

If one knows of the Standard Cosmology way of explaining the formation of our Solar System, this mythical telling can IMO easily be compared to the ancient stories of creation in many cultures.

The standard cosmology explanation also take off with "a cosmic cloud of gas (watery elements) and dust" which comes together and create the Solar System", but when it comes to the ancient telling, the creation story includes Milky Way terms as the ancient observations "only" includes the Milky Way at the largest in their world perception.

The first creation of firm matters happens when "cosmic rivers" comes together in a swirling motion and creates "firm matters" and spheres of gas, and from the first firm matter all firm planets and stars are created in the Milky Way.

This creational/formational process explaines how the subject of "earth" in the Bible can occur before the very creation of our Solar System and the planet Earth. The first "earth" term simply explains how firm matter is created in general, whereas the second mentioning in the Bible speaks of the factual planet Earth and how it is positioned in the overall cosmic imagery/firmament.[/QUOTE]

The earth was able to occur because God parted the primal waters and allowed dry land. Every Hebrew reference in the creation story is referencing literal water. Even the blue of the sky was believed to be because we could see the water storage above heaven. There was no Milky Way that had to be created here, there was a primal sea of water. The region that housed the stars and all things seen in space was below heaven and the waters. This primal water is then used for rain, snow and Noahs flood. Their creation story doesn't have any mention of the milky way.

We have several Sea Monsters in ancient cultural mythology. Once again, if we connect these sea monsters to the mythical concept of the "cosmic ocean" and other celestial "water issues", we can find several links to cultural mythological stories.

For instants: In Norse Mythology we have the "Midgaard Serpent", Jörmungandr, which encircle the entire Midgaard, the home of humans = the Earth. The only celestial structure which encircle the Earth is observed as the white Milky Way band which is observable in the night sky all around the Earth.

So, the Milky Way contours are connected to several mythological symbols, but in the case of the "Milky Way River", a Sea Serpent is also connected to the cultural stories of the Milky Way. Other Milky Way symbols are specifically cows, which logically connects to the white color of the Milky Way, and it is the same case of a Mother Goddess who also is connected to the Milky Way via her breast feeding milk as described here at - Cattle in religion and mythology - Wikipedia

These sentences contains both celestial and terrestrial terms, which automatically cannot be connected and described logically as a whole.

In Exodus these were actual sea monsters in the ocean. Yahweh was a warrior deity and a storm God. The mentions of a sea monster are believed to be allegories to the power of the ocean on Earth.

 

[Native]

The earth was able to occur because God parted the primal waters and allowed dry land. Every Hebrew reference in the creation story is referencing literal water. Even the blue of the sky was believed to be because we could see the water storage above heaven.

From my studying of other cultural Stories of Creation it´s my firm conviction that this first part of the Genesis telling simply explaines how "the watery elements become firm matter" in general and NOT referring to the Earth as this (also) occur later on in the Genesis telling.

As the Hebrew Genesis references have everything in the beginning to be connected to the "watery" term, the big question then is to which extend this story regards.

Analytical going back via the present terrestrial and celestial conditions, we of course have the Earth, the daily solar observation, the night sky observations of the Moon, stars, star constellations - and the white "mythical watery" band of the Milky Way which can be observed all around the Earth.

If connecting this to the Hebrew story, we then have "waters above and below" the Earth - hence my opinion of the extent of the Genesis - and other cultural stories of creation - regards at the least with the Milky Way and it´s contents.

There was no Milky Way that had to be created here, there was a primal sea of water.

IMO. the very Milky Way was in fact created in the initial beginning of the Genesis telling.

This primal water is then used for rain, snow and Noahs flood. Their creation story doesn't have any mention of the milky way.

As you can read otherwhere in this thread, I reject the consensus interpretation idea of "a Noahs Flood" as this part of the "primal watery creation symbolism" connects specifically to the making and outlook of the very Milky Way itself.

The Hebrew religious tradition DOES HAVE a name for the Milky Way, namely "Fire-Stream" as you can read here - Hebrew astronomy - Wikipedia - where also lots of other astronomical and cosmological issues are mentioned.

Apparently the Hebrew perception took the hot light of the Sun and the stars in the Milky Way band to count for the similar warm/hot/fiery qualities, hence the "Fire-Stream" = the Milky Way band.

 

[ecco]

Apparently this is as much to large analytic and logical challenge for you, so just forget about it.

Yeah. I guess you are right. I just cannot keep up with your back and forth and ins and outs and "I meant"s.

I'll see ya the next time you post another of your WOOers.

 

[Native]

I just cannot keep up with your back and forth and ins and outs . . .

No, it require a logical and analytic sense to decipher two sided arguments, which is why much of my comments is woo to you.

 

[joelr]

From my studying of other cultural Stories of Creation it´s my firm conviction that this first part of the Genesis telling simply explaines how "the watery elements become firm matter" in general and NOT referring to the Earth as this (also) occur later on in the Genesis telling.

As the Hebrew Genesis references have everything in the beginning to be connected to the "watery" term, the big question then is to which extend this story regards.

It clearly describes water as the primal source of creation. The stars (including the Milky Way) reside under heaven and the waters. The big question you refer to is answered. The oldest Egyptian myth is that everything came from primal waters. It's pretty clear that Genesis extends this tradition in its mythology.
You can look this up yourself, it's called Nun.

"
According to the theology of the Ogdoad the universe was formed from the interaction of eight elements (instigated by one of a number of possible gods including Thoth, Amun, Horus, and Ra); water, nothingness or invisibility, darkness, and infinity.

Water was represented by Nun and Naunet (the female form). Although the Egyptians had many different creation myths, they all agreed that the universe came from the primordial waters of Nun, and many legends suggested that everything would slip back under these waters at the end of the world.

There were no priests or temples devoted specifically to Nun, but he was represented by the sacred lake of each temple and was frequently referred to in religious inscriptions.
Nun existed in every particle of water and formed the source of the river Nile and the yearly innundation."
Nun | Ancient Egypt Online

Again, this is the same thing as Genesis, use of the word water and then confirmation in saying it's the source of actual rain and rivers showing it isn't a metaphor.

IMO. the very Milky Way was in fact created in the initial beginning of the Genesis telling.

Where is that?

As you can read otherwhere in this thread, I reject the consensus interpretation idea of "a Noahs Flood" as this part of the "primal watery creation symbolism" connects specifically to the making and outlook of the very Milky Way itself.

That doesn't change the fact that it's a flood myth where it rained flooded the Earth and they needed a boat. This myth just doesn't match up with what you are looking for. Why do you even need to reinterpret myths to fit an agenda? This is how creation science and apologetics are done and they re all crank.

The Hebrew religious tradition DOES HAVE a name for the Milky Way, namely "Fire-Stream" as you can read here - Hebrew astronomy - Wikipedia - where also lots of other astronomical and cosmological issues are mentioned.

Apparently the Hebrew perception took the hot light of the Sun and the stars in the Milky Way band to count for the similar warm/hot/fiery qualities, hence the "Fire-Stream" = the Milky Way band.

Well that makes it easy? There you go. They have a name for it and it isn't included in Genesis.

 

[Native]

It clearly describes water as the primal source of creation. The stars (including the Milky Way) reside under heaven and the waters. The big question you refer to is answered. The oldest Egyptian myth is that everything came from primal waters. It's pretty clear that Genesis extends this tradition in its mythology.
You can look this up yourself, it's called Nun.

As a Comparative Mythologist, I´m of course aware of the Egyptian creation story too.

When the "primordial waters" came together from chaos, it created the "first fiery entity" which created everything else. And as this prime Atum-Ra entity otherwhere in the Egyptian cultural period was cosmologically closely connected to the Egyptian Goddess Hathor who resemble the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere, you have a DIRECT connection to the Milky Way Mythology too.

Water was represented by Nun and Naunet (the female form). Although the Egyptians had many different creation myths, they all agreed that the universe came from the primordial waters of Nun, and many legends suggested that everything would slip back under these waters at the end of the world.

Agreed to the first two sentences. Suggestions aren´t evidences for anything at all.

Nun existed in every particle of water and formed the source of the river Nile and the yearly innundation."
Nun | Ancient Egypt Online

How would a primordial Nun ONLY be cited for making the geographic river Nile amongst everything else this deity created from the primordial waters? Where are the logics in this?

Native said: ↑
IMO. the very Milky Way was in fact created in the initial beginning of the Genesis telling.

Where is that?

This gives itself when working with Comparative Mythology and the cultural Stories of Creation - for instants as told in the Egyptian connection Nun>Atum-Ra>Milky Way goddess Hathor connection above.

Native said: ↑
As you can read otherwhere in this thread, I reject the consensus interpretation idea of "a Noahs Flood" as this part of the "primal watery creation symbolism" connects specifically to the making and outlook of the very Milky Way itself.

That doesn't change the fact that it's a flood myth where it rained flooded the Earth and they needed a boat.

Do you really accept a concrete "Genesis Flood" to once have covered the entire Earth and its highest mountains? REALLY?

Why do you even need to reinterpret myths to fit an agenda? This is how creation science and apologetics are done and they re all crank.

Are you taking me for a crank just for having seconds thoughts and explanations? I need to reinterpret myths everywhere where they doesn´t make logical and scientific sense - as for instants with a flood which once drowned the Earth.

Native said: ↑
The Hebrew religious tradition DOES HAVE a name for the Milky Way, namely "Fire-Stream" as you can read here - Hebrew astronomy - Wikipedia - where also lots of other astronomical and cosmological issues are mentioned.

Apparently the Hebrew perception took the hot light of the Sun and the stars in the Milky Way band to count for the similar warm/hot/fiery qualities, hence the "Fire-Stream" = the Milky Way band.

Well that makes it easy? There you go. They have a name for it and it isn't included in Genesis.

Of course the Hebrew Milky Way "Fire-Stream" name isn´t included in the Genesis as this speaks of a "watery symbolism", very similar to the naming of the Milky Way in other cultures.

Notes:
The cultural Egyptian goddesses of Nut and Hathor both resembles the Milky Way as the mythical symbol of the Heavenly Cow, as you can read here - Book of the Heavenly Cow - Wikipedia

Here the consensus scholars and authors are mythologically and astronomically confused to ascribe both deities to the Sun - which of course is illogical as the Sun cannot depict "a heavenly cow" but it CAN depict the image of the Milky Way contours on the southern hemisphere - and then "the Sun" should be the "central luminosity in the Milky Way.

This only shows that if ancient, historic and present scholars and authors have no clues of the astronomic and cosmologic extend in the ancient Stories of Creation, they have no other options but to take solar symbolism to count for even galactic matters, thus skewing both the ancient myths and its factual meanings.

You can read of more sacred Cow Deities here - Cattle in religion and mythology - Wikipedia - where cows were symbolically chosen for their milky nursering quality and milky color which logically connects to the term "Milky Way".

 

[Native]

BTW in connection with this:

You can read of more sacred Cow Deities here - Cattle in religion and mythology - Wikipedia - where cows were symbolically chosen for their milky nursering quality and milky color which logically connects to the term "Milky Way".

A school example of how most consensus scholars are totally lost on interpreting ancient myths.

Quote from - Bat (goddess) - Wikipedia
“Relation to Hathor
The imagery of Bat as a divine cow was remarkably similar to that of Hathor, a parallel goddess from another nome. In two dimensional images, both goddesses often are depicted straight on, facing the onlooker and not in profile in accordance with the characteristic Egyptian convention. The significant difference in their depictions is that the horns of Bat curve inward and those of Hathor curve outward slightly. It is possible that this could be based in the different breeds of cattle herded at different times”.
------------
Here the scholars are discussing a celestial Milky Way female Goddess who are connected to sacred cows - and then they go on speculating in terrestrial cow breeding!?

This is utterly ridiculous.

A cow with lots of stars on its body and a symbol of light between its horns, logically has nothing to do with terrestrial cow breeding throughout cultural periods at all.

It is of course the same celestial (Milky Way) scenario which is described very similar throughout the cultural periods.

 

[joelr]

As a Comparative Mythologist, I´m of course aware of the Egyptian creation story too.

When the "primordial waters" came together from chaos, it created the "first fiery entity" which created everything else. And as this prime Atum-Ra entity otherwhere in the Egyptian cultural period was cosmologically closely connected to the Egyptian Goddess Hathor who resemble the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere, you have a DIRECT connection to the Milky Way Mythology too.

Again, the vast amounts of references describe this as water. Even if fire came from it.

"In ancient Egyptian creation accounts, the original mound of land comes forth from the waters of the Nun."
Nu (mythology) - Wikipedia

Agreed to the first two sentences. Suggestions aren´t evidences for anything at all.

First then that nullifies any evidence you put forth? Second they just use the word suggestions to describe that fact that it sounds like their myth says everything came from primal waters?
If you want to ignore words then cool. There is far more evidence that this is a water myth.w

How would a primordial Nun ONLY be cited for making the geographic river Nile amongst everything else this deity created from the primordial waters? Where are the logics in this?

Uh, because Nun is water?

Native said: ↑
IMO. the very Milky Way was in fact created in the initial beginning of the Genesis telling.

well no it doesn't because you gave their word for milky way and it's not there.
Quote the verse where they use the word in Genesis.

This gives itself when working with Comparative Mythology and the cultural Stories of Creation - for instants as told in the Egyptian connection Nun>Atum-Ra>Milky Way goddess Hathor connection above.

Yeah I'm reading it right now and like you point out right here the milky way comes from the primal waters? This myth as well as Genesis simply doesn't start with the milky way or fire. Why is this a problem for you?
If you do comparative mythology then you have to compare myths. Not re-write them to fit an idea.

Native said: ↑

Do you really accept a concrete "Genesis Flood" to once have covered the entire Earth and its highest mountains? REALLY?

Yes they REALLY thought that a flood happened and every other culture who borrowed the myth really thought a flood happened because their one true God flooded the Earth. Except the author who borrowed the story. But even that person may have convinced themself that Yahweh was speaking through them as well. The writers of Genesis clearly believed there was a primal sea of actual water and they even said that's why the sky is blue. They did not care about the stars because they were below heaven and not as important to creation.

Are you taking me for a crank just for having seconds thoughts and explanations? I need to reinterpret myths everywhere where they doesn´t make logical and scientific sense - as for instants with a flood which once drowned the Earth.

why wouldn't ancient Israelites think the Earth was flooded? Some people TODAY STILL THINK IT WAS FLOODED? This is bizarre, why would fiction from 100 B.C. need to make scientific sense?

Apparently the Hebrew perception took the hot light of the Sun and the stars in the Milky Way band to count for the similar warm/hot/fiery qualities, hence the "Fire-Stream" = the Milky Way band.

Of course the Hebrew Milky Way "Fire-Stream" name isn´t included in the Genesis as this speaks of a "watery symbolism", very similar to the naming of the Milky Way in other cultures.

It isn't symbolism in Israelite myths.

:

The cultural Egyptian goddesses of Nut and Hathor both resembles the Milky Way as the mythical symbol of the Heavenly Cow, as you can read here - Book of the Heavenly Cow - Wikipedia

Here the consensus scholars and authors are mythologically and astronomically confused to ascribe both deities to the Sun - which of course is illogical as the Sun cannot depict "a heavenly cow" but it CAN depict the image of the Milky Way contours on the southern hemisphere - and then "the Sun" should be the "central luminosity in the Milky Way.

This only shows that if ancient, historic and present scholars and authors have no clues of the astronomic and cosmologic extend in the ancient Stories of Creation, they have no other options but to take solar symbolism to count for even galactic matters, thus skewing both the ancient myths and its factual meanings.

You can read of more sacred Cow Deities here - Cattle in religion and mythology - Wikipedia - where cows were symbolically chosen for their milky nursering quality and milky color which logically connects to the term "Milky Way".

The point is Genesis is using a common creation motif that everything comes from primal waters. Actual water. The Nu is clearly water and this is where the idea came from in Genesis which is even more clear that it's literal water. Brahma also created an egg from primal waters.

They connect to the milky way because of their milky color??? Scholars are all wrong and your source is milky cows?
There is no indication about cows and the milky way in that article. They obviously have other importance. Mostly vegetarianism and such.
The Egyptian myth isn't about a cow being the sun?


"One of several ancient Egyptian creation myths said that a cow goddess, Mehet-Weret, who represented the primeval waters that existed before creation, gave birth to the sun at the beginning of time. The sky was sometimes envisioned as a goddess in the form of a cow, and several goddesses, including Hathor, Nut, and Neith, were equated with this celestial cow.[67]

It represented the primal water and birthed the sun? You would have to at least read the original translation but there is 100% no milky way here. A myth with primal waters and an explanation for the sun which is what you would expect.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
As a Comparative Mythologist, I´m of course aware of the Egyptian creation story too.

When the "primordial waters" came together from chaos, it created the "first fiery entity" which created everything else. And as this prime Atum-Ra entity otherwhere in the Egyptian cultural period was cosmologically closely connected to the Egyptian Goddess Hathor who resemble the Milky Way on the southern hemisphere, you have a DIRECT connection to the Milky Way Mythology too.

Again, the vast amounts of references describe this as water. Even if fire came from it.

Agreed. But WHAT it this fire? Egyptological scholars and others have this primordial fire to represent the Sun but this doesn´t compute with the Hathor (or similar) Egyptian goddesses, which depicts the southern hemisphere contours of our Milky Way as illustrated here - The great Mother Goddess

This primordial water & fire describe the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way galaxy and its´pre-creation and factual creation. You still can take the outlook of the galactic arms and symbolize these as "galactic rivers of water".

Native said: ↑
How would a primordial Nun ONLY be cited for making the geographic river Nile amongst everything else this deity created from the primordial waters? Where are the logics in this?

Uh, because Nun is water?

I just noted this because we´re dealing with the primordial conditions of creation from "water" and in this sense it is illogical to interpret Nun as a terrestrial geographic river.

Native said: ↑
IMO. the very Milky Way was in fact created in the initial beginning of the Genesis telling.

well no it doesn't because you gave their word for milky way and it's not there.
Quote the verse where they use the word in Genesis.

You can blame the authors of Genesis for not noticing this, but in fact, the Hebrew mythology had the "Fire-Stream" definition for the Milky Way which fits nicely to the Biblical Genesis notion of "let there be Light".

Native said: ↑
This gives itself when working with Comparative Mythology and the cultural Stories of Creation - for instants as told in the Egyptian connection Nun>Atum-Ra>Milky Way goddess Hathor connection above.

Yeah I'm reading it right now and like you point out right here the milky way comes from the primal waters? This myth as well as Genesis simply doesn't start with the milky way or fire. Why is this a problem for you?

Its not a problem for me: The Milky Way is created from the primordial waters (in modern science: cosmic clouds of dust and gases) and when this comes together in a swirling central motion, the central light (Atum-Ra) creates all firm matters in the Milky Way, hence the familiarity of (Atum)-Ra and goddess Hathor who represent the Milky Way contours on the southern hemisphere where the central galactic light is located.

If you do comparative mythology then you have to compare myths. Not re-write them to fit an idea.

I´m not rewriting anything. I´m simply COMPARING, INTERPRETING & EXPLAINING the ancient myths in both mythical and modern astronomical and cosmological terms - and THIS is the only new thing I do. (In fact this isn´t even new as this was already noticed by our ancestors in ancient times. I´m just re-discovering the ancient knowledge).

Native said: ↑
Do you really accept a concrete "Genesis Flood" to once have covered the entire Earth and its highest mountains? REALLY?

Yes they REALLY thought that a flood happened and every other culture who borrowed the myth really thought a flood happened because their one true God flooded the Earth.

No, the historic interpreters thought this, but our prehistoric ancestors had the Milky Way symbolized to look like a celestial river running OVER and AROUND the Earth and not ON the Earth. You still can observe this celestial river in the darker seasons as a white band around the Earth. (And of course, a possible creator wouldn´t be that stupid to destroy his immense works!. This is simply a priestal "revenge invention" in order to govern the pub).

Native said: ↑
The cultural Egyptian goddesses of Nut and Hathor both resembles the Milky Way as the mythical symbol of the Heavenly Cow, as you can read here - Book of the Heavenly Cow - Wikipedia

Here the consensus scholars and authors are mythologically and astronomically confused to ascribe both deities to the Sun - which of course is illogical as the Sun cannot depict "a heavenly cow" but it CAN depict the image of the Milky Way contours on the southern hemisphere - and then "the Sun" should be the "central luminosity in the Milky Way.

This only shows that if ancient, historic and present scholars and authors have no clues of the astronomic and cosmologic extend in the ancient Stories of Creation, they have no other options but to take solar symbolism to count for even galactic matters, thus skewing both the ancient myths and its factual meanings.

You can read of more sacred Cow Deities here - Cattle in religion and mythology - Wikipedia - where cows were symbolically chosen for their milky nursering quality and milky color which logically connects to the term "Milky Way".

The point is Genesis is using a common creation motif that everything comes from primal waters. Actual water. The Nu is clearly water and this is where the idea came from in Genesis which is even more clear that it's literal water. Brahma also created an egg from primal waters.

In fact we don´t disagree with each other at all. I just take the "primordial waters" to count for the modern cosmological terms of "creation from a cloud of dust and gases, i.e. "watery elements", hence the modern creation story of our Solar System - which is a small and orbiting part in the Milky Way creation.

They connect to the milky way because of their milky color??? Scholars are all wrong and your source is milky cows?

We have to understand the ancient way of describing celestial matters by building a story with natural symbols known by humans: If you observe a celestial white band running in the night Sky, you´ll look for similar white/whitish colors and symbols from your surroundings and then you can take running rivers or you can take milk from cows and use this symbolic in order to describe what you observe in the night Sky = then a cow becomes a basic mythical and archetypical symbol of the Milky Way, and you even can take the human female milky qualities to describe the same and then you have a celestial Great Mother Goddess (Hathor and others of different cultural periods) of creation as illustrated here - The great Mother Goddess - If scholars have no clues of this natural and cosmological symbolism, they of course are all wrong per definition.

The Egyptian myth isn't about a cow being the sun?

No it is not. Its about having a cow to symbolise the southern Milky Way contours and a symbol of Light between its horns to symbolise the central Milky Way light/luminosity. Of course and logically you cannot imagine such a cow scenario to be connected to the Sun at all.

"One of several ancient Egyptian creation myths said that a cow goddess, Mehet-Weret, who represented the primeval waters that existed before creation, gave birth to the sun at the beginning of time. The sky was sometimes envisioned as a goddess in the form of a cow, and several goddesses, including Hathor, Nut, and Neith, were equated with this celestial cow.[67]

Once again this mythical reference cannot be connected to the Sun at all. And once again the scholars and author of these sentences are forced to making wrong conclusions when having no clues of the ancient Milky Way connections and perceptions.

You would have to at least read the original translation but there is 100% no milky way here.

Of course there is no references to the Milky Way there as the authors had no clue of such a connection. In their mythical, astronomical and cosmological ignorances, they just speaks (very inconsistently) of the Sun and that´s all.

A myth with primal waters and an explanation for the sun which is what you would expect.

NOT when connecting factual notions to the galactic representation of Hathor and other goddesses/cows.

Once again: You cannot speak of the Sun as neither a cow nor a female figure. This is scholarly mythical, astronomical and cosmological and disconnected confusions which tend to be superstitious claims when analyzing their interpretations in the deep..

As said several times now: It isn´t the Sun which is the prime entity to be formed from the primordial waters in the cultural creation stories. It is the CENTRAL LIGHT (Atum-Ra) in our Milky Way galaxy from where even our Solar (Ra) System is created.