Rediscoveries of the Milky Way

[Native]

if you are familiar with Egyptian myths as I am, then you should know that different periods (eg Predynastic Period, Old, Middle, New kingdoms, Late Period, etc), different dynasties, different cult centres (eg Heliopolis, Hermopolis, Memphis, Thebes, Edfu, Dendera, etc), will have different myths about the deities, like parentage, children, siblings.

Yes, I concluded that myself here:

I´m fully aware of the different dynastic Ogdoad creation stories and it´s historically reduced and disconnected interpretations.

Yes, I am well aware that in some myths that Hathor is depicted as Ra’s daughter, but I also know of where she is his wife/consort In different myth.

Again: If Hathor represents the Milky Way, she cannot be "father/parently" connected to Ra = Our Sun, but to the Central MIlky Way Light, Amun-Ra.

The mythical/cosmological Hathors wife/consort connection fits only when Hathor is interpreted as the Prime Mother Milky Way Goddess which has formed our Sun - which is very logically indeed.

Earlier myth about indicate that Amun was not the supreme being, Ra was, eg compare myths between Old Kingdom period vs New Kingdom period. Old Kingdom Amun also doesn’t say anything that connecting him to the Milky Way.

Until you understand that, then we are going to continue to argue in circles.

We´ll do that until you begin to argue with (your own too) confirmations of the Milky Way connections instead of arguing with negations. Being in opposition to be just that, leads us nowhere at all.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, I concluded that myself here:


Again: If Hathor represents the Milky Way, she cannot be "father/parently" connected to Ra = Our Sun, but to the Central MIlky Way Light, Amun-Ra.

The mythical/cosmological Hathors wife/consort connection fits only when Hathor is interpreted as the Prime Mother Milky Way Goddess which has formed our Sun - which is very logically indeed.

We´ll do that until you begin to argue with (your own too) confirmations of the Milky Way connections instead of arguing with negations. Being in opposition to be just that, leads us nowhere at all.

one of the things I like about myths in general, is that there can be any numbers of variations to myth about this or that, depending on where and when these variations were composed, and depending upon the traditions (sources) that are available. This lead to dynamic storytelling of certain cultures or societies.

Of course, dynamic myths can also lead to confusion and inconsistencies in the storytelling, like the relationship between Ra & Hathor, eg is Hathor, Ra’s mother, daughter or wife?

Some years ago, when I was still actively working on Timeless Myths, in one of the articles I wrote concerning Helen of Sparta & Troy, I received an angry email because I included a lesser known source that her mother was the goddess Nemesis by Zeus. He only knew of the more popular source, where Leda, the queen of Sparta was raped by Zeus (who was in the form of swan in both versions of the myths). I tried to explain to him, there were several versions to Helen’s parentage, and that I included both sources. He didn’t understand that.

Just as there are more than 1 myth/tradition about Hathor, there are also numbers of versions about Amun, or of Ra, and so on.

 

[Native]

one of the things I like about myths in general, is that there can be any numbers of variations to myth about this or that, depending on where and when these variations were composed, and depending upon the traditions (sources) that are available. This lead to dynamic storytelling of certain cultures or societies.

I need to sort of correct you on this. If for instants the Milky Way is mentioned in connection to myths, there are no other interpretative options but to concentrate on the Milky Way connection, and here, you even can use modern cosmology if you like.

Some years ago, when I was still actively working on Timeless Myths, in one of the articles I wrote concerning Helen of Sparta & Troy, I received an angry email because I included a lesser known source that her mother was the goddess Nemesis by Zeus. He only knew of the more popular source, where Leda, the queen of Sparta was raped by Zeus (who was in the form of swan in both versions of the myths). I tried to explain to him, there were several versions to Helen’s parentage, and that I included both sources. He didn’t understand that.

I wonder how you interpret and locate this bolded mythical sentense?

 

[gnostic]

I need to sort of correct you on this. If for instants the Milky Way is mentioned in connection to myths, there are no other interpretative options but to concentrate on the Milky Way connection, and here, you even can use modern cosmology if you like.

I wonder how you interpret and locate this bolded mythical sentense?

I should have included comma after “Sparta,”

sorry.

Zeus had raped both goddess (Nemesis) and woman (Leda), in 2 different versions about the myth about the birth of Helen. In both versions, Zeus had shape-shifted into a swan, in guise.

 

[Native]

I should have included comma after “Sparta,”

I don´t care the least for wrong punctuations or lack of it at all.

Zeus had raped both goddess (Nemesis) and woman (Leda), in 2 different versions about the myth about the birth of Helen. In both versions, Zeus had shape-shifted into a swan, in guise

I know of the texts, but what does it mean? Do you have deities running around in Sparta raping swans? And how can Helen be the result of this?

 

[gnostic]

I don´t care the least for wrong punctuations or lack of it at all.

I know of the texts, but what does it mean? Do you have deities running around in Sparta raping swans? And how can Helen be the result of this?

When have any myths about being realistic?

You think Zeus turning into a swan, strange?

How about in when the Ogdoad, including Amun, are all depicted with human bodies, but with heads of frogs? Or in Egypt, further south of Thebes, Amun is depicted with ram’s head? And by adopting all of Ra’s attributes, that would including having head of a hawk?

Yes, all myth are strange, and ancient people were very imaginative, even though their storytelling are clearly not possible, they are nevertheless very interesting.

 

[blü 2]

Presenter Anton Petrov refers in his newest YouTube video to “new Milky Way discoveries” which in fact are several thousands of years old.

“Mind blowing New Discoveries About the Milky Way Galaxy”

These modern discoveries doesn´t surprise genuine Comparative Mythologists at all.

The ancient mythical “Light of Creation” = Electromagnetic Forces, and of course this is governing the Milky Way as everything else in cosmos.

For instants, in the Egyptian Ogdoad creation story, Amun-Ra represent the central Milky Way Light.

Some article authors are on the correct electromagnetic track here, but sadly Anton keeps on referring to the long outdated “cosmic galactic collisions and merging” and “gravitational waves”.

Video timestamps:
0:00 Gaia discoveries keep rewriting books.
0:35 Magnetic field discoveries and new magnetic maps.
2:49 Magnetic fields are chaotic and cause star formation.
4:02 eRosita bubbles form magnetic lines.
5:57 Bubbles are produced by quiet galaxies in specific regions.
7:20 Galaxy contains huge toroids that spin everything.
8:20 Galactic collision signs - The Great Wave.
10:28 Stars near us are super old - so is our galaxy.
11:35 Wrinkles suggest recent collisions.
12:50 Smith's cloud...coming soon.

What are your thoughts of this?

Where can I read a peer-reviewed paper on these claims?

 

[Native]

Where can I read a peer-reviewed paper on these claims?

You can read some in the description here

 

[blü 2]

You can read some in the description here

Thanks, but I'm looking for a peer-reviewed paper, or at the least a report in a reputable journal of science, that affirms (or as the case may be) the claims in the video.

 

[Native]

When have any myths about being realistic?

Every time our ancestors have referred to the daily and nocturnal celestial scenario.

You think Zeus turning into a swan, strange?

No I don´t think so as this imagery can be observed on the night sky as a huge malish Milky Way figure together with the Swan constellation.

How about in when the Ogdoad, including Amun, are all depicted with human bodies, but with heads of frogs? Or in Egypt, further south of Thebes, Amun is depicted with ram’s head? And by adopting all of Ra’s attributes, that would including having head of a hawk?

That´s the beauty of natural symbolism.
You have to take the symbols seriously and the natural connection to get it right.
Regarding the Rams Head, this is connected to Milky Way contours and the most ancient dynastic Egyptian Story of Creation.
Hawks belongs to the celestial realm, hence it is a logical symbol for both the Milky Way Amun-Ra, and Ra, the Sun.

 

[Native]

Thanks, but I'm looking for a peer-reviewed paper, or at the least a report in a reputable journal of science, that affirms (or as the case may be) the claims in the video.

Well, what about searching for some relevant articles here?

 

[blü 2]

Well, what about searching for some relevant articles here?

You don't have one you can recommend?

 

[Native]

You don't have one you can recommend?

Sorry, you have to do your own research work in this case.

 

[blü 2]

Sorry, you have to do your own research work in this case.

No I don't. I'll leave you to it.

 

[gnostic]

That´s the beauty of natural symbolism.
You have to take the symbols seriously and the natural connection to get it right.

The problem with symbolism of any kinds, natural or not, each one of them, are open to vast arrays of possible interpretations. Multiple interpretations can often lead to conflicts, contradictions & confusion. With interpretations that don’t agree with each other.

How do you determine or resolve which of these interpretations are the right one? Are there even a single correct interpretation?

I have delved with symbols from numbers of myths, during my times with Timeless Myths and with Dark Mirrors of Heaven, and clearly sources and traditions can change over time, that the symbols would also change.

And even among Egyptians, their views of their deities changed over time, myths changed, as well as their identities (eg names changed).

The fact that Amun was a different god, from the Old Kingdom to the New Kingdom, and to the Late Period, tells me that they don’t always believe in the same things.

Amun was not always supreme god; he wasn’t always “Amun-Ra”.

Amun was not always creator god, especially during the Old Kingdom period. Ptah from Memphis was, or Atum, Ra or Atum-Ra from Heliopolis and elsewhere in Egypt, was (Ra or Atum was much more popular god in the 3rd millennium BCE than Ptah & Amun).

Amun wasn’t always associated with the Milky Way, especially not during the Old Kingdom period.

There are no existence of Amun, prior to the dynastic periods (hence Predynastic Egypt or Protodynastic Egypt) during much of the 4th millennium BCE. Evidence of Horus, Set, Hathor, Bat, and even Ra, existed in this millennium.

Amun’s identity, attributes, myths, changed over times, as does the symbols the ancients have given him.

 

[Native]

No I don't. I'll leave you to it

In fact you´re now leaving it to your own lack of interest or lazyness.

 

[Native]

The problem with symbolism of any kinds, natural or not, each one of them, are open to vast arrays of possible interpretations. Multiple interpretations can often lead to conflicts, contradictions & confusion. With interpretations that don’t agree with each other.

These sentences just morrors the fact that scholars and other researhers don´t ponder deeply over the symbolism and its explainable extents.

Take the different Ogdoad Stories of Creation. They all belongs to the stage of "when nothing of the present observable world scenario was created". This is in fact a story which is comparable with the modern attempt to describe and explain the creation of the Solar System - Except our ancestors in fact included the entire Milky Way AND the Solar System in their creation tellings, so they were in fact ahead modern cosmology in this case.

How would you explain all this with worthings and symbols from several thousands years ago? You could only use natural symbols from your known nature and world.

Why are FROGS and SNAKES used allegorically as explaining symbols in the ancient Ogdoad story? Ponder over that and give me your conclusion.

For the rest of your reply, I´ll just comment on this:

Amun was not always supreme god; he wasn’t always “Amun-Ra”.

Sort of incorrect: Amun was always a supreme primordial air-god-entity in itself but was transformed in the creation stories from representing "air" to represent the "first fiery entity", which is logical as fire cannot burn without air/oxygen.

Amun, god of the air, was one of the eight primordial Egyptian deities. When all of the 4 male and 4 female elementary qualities came together in (a swirling) motion, it all resulted in a central "Fiery Light" entity, logically dubbed Amun-Ra as it was the beginning of the Milky Way creation. From this central point of a fiery light, our Solar System was formed in the subsequent process, mytho-cosmologically calling the Sun = Ra and "son of Amun-Ra.
-----
Logically nothing has changed regarding the mytho-cosmologically content in the inherited creation stories! But of course the human understanding has changed significantly according forgetting the natural way more and more of interpreting the genious ancient creation stories.

Besides this, most historic and present scolars and laymen HUGELY UNDERESTIMATE the ancestral physical and spiritual observations and knowledge!

And that is your problem too I think.

BTW:
In mythology there is a global conundrum regarding "The Two Sun" Mystery" which is dealing with the "First Light" in the Milky Way center and of course "The Second Light", our Sun.

Having no clues of the ancient Milky Way information, scholars are completely confused and take it all to deal with the Sun =Ra.

 

[blü 2]

In fact you´re now leaving it to your own lack of interest or lazyness.

I'm leaving because you're offering nothing solid in support of your claims. If there's laziness here, it isn't on my side. It's not my job to make your case for you.

 

[Native]

It's not my job to make your case for you.

You didn´t even act on my linkings to relevant articles, so now: Help yourself.

 

[blü 2]

You didn´t even act on my linkings to relevant articles, so now: Help yourself.

I asked you for a peer-reviewed paper, or at the least a report in a reputable journal of science, that affirms (or as the case may be) the claims in the video.

You apparently don't have one.

Enjoy your day.