The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:35 am

@Cargo, you replied:
Cargo wrote:
Norman wrote:Subject: The Naming of Planets.
...snip...
What are your thoughts on this matter?


What a great post. Thank you.

It is obvious really. The 'age' of things is not what we think. Jupiter was a secondary Sun and both destroyed and created other bodies in the sky over unknown and likely generational human time spans.. .

I don´t believe in the mythical interpretation of the planets, if this is your approach. My point in the subject of the "Planetary Naming" was to show how planets originally just were "wandering stars" without the Roman descriptions of myths from their primeval pantheon of creation.

Otherwise, I agree somewhat in your:
. . . and you can paint a stark picture of what is really at stake for modern human understanding when the EU electric shock therapy pinches down on the beliefs and faith of today's history.

The strict scientific part of the EU will have a huge influence on the future cosmology, but I don´t think the standing planetary interpretation of myths does much good for the EU.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Thu Mar 10, 2016 5:43 am

@Cargo,
A following up on the Solar System and the planetary conditions:

The Solar System is IMO an integrated part of the galactic rotation and as such, also an intergrated part of the central galactic formation.

I don´t think significant planetary changes have taken place since the Solar System formation came to rest after leaving the galactic center, from where it is made according to the myths of creation.

But I think that the Roman mythical naming of planets, and misinterpretation of creation myths in general, have caused some people to believe in different kinds of planetary catastrophic upheavals and in "once upon a time another planetary polar configuration", ideas to which I´m trying to give my alternative and natural explanation here.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby moses » Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:35 pm

Hi Influx, if there were events that caused the myths then what you say would probably be the case. However Mathisen clearly shows that the myths arise out of the shapes of the constellations and the movements of the stars during the night as well as a spiritual story that underpins it all.

Thus there is no doubt that the stories have one origin. And so there must have been world-wide sailing and thus an advanced culture. Then we ponder whether this culture was before the Younger Dryas event or after and, of course, whether this event wiped out the ancient culture.

The implications for Velikovsky and a Saturn System are profound. Much work needs to be done.
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Thu Mar 10, 2016 2:16 pm

@Moses,
You replied to Influx:
Thus there is no doubt that the stories have one origin. And so there must have been world-wide sailing and thus an advanced culture. Then we ponder whether this culture was before the Younger Dryas event or after and, of course, whether this event wiped out the ancient culture.

The implications for Velikovsky and a Saturn System are profound. Much work needs to be done.

I agree on the one story.
The one story deals with the Story of Creation.
The ancient known world included images, symbols and tellings about the Milky Way galaxy.
This is also the common knowledge of the Earth and the seasonal motion and the looks of the celestial Sky.
This is our common story and it could of course be experienced by all humans no matter where they live.

I think the mythical implications for Velikovsky and "Saturn System" speaks clearly against those ideas. They are simply misinterpretations of the myths and their celestial meanings, which I have described in my former posts of subjects.
Northern Hemisphere.04.jpg
Northern Hemisphere.04.jpg (22.42 KiB) Viewed 2149 times

"The Saturn System" can STILL be observed in the present Sky. It is the crescent Milky Way contours of the northern Sky Milky Way Man, which seemingly revolves around the celestial pole.
Swedish Rock Art.Man and Celestial Pole.jpg
Swedish Rock Art.Man and Celestial Pole.jpg (28.98 KiB) Viewed 2149 times
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby comingfrom » Thu Mar 10, 2016 6:41 pm

"The Saturn System" can STILL be observed in the present Sky. It is the crescent Milky Way contours of the northern Sky Milky Way Man, which seemingly revolves around the celestial pole.

The mountain of the gods is not visible anymore.
The gods went away.

In my opinion, the best evidence for the Saturn model is the evacuation of the Martian northern hemisphere, and the deposition of water and dust found in Saturn's pristine new rings.

Jupiter also, "walked away" from the configuration with a set of rings.

Uranus shows us what an old ring system looks like.

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Fri Mar 11, 2016 2:49 am

@Paul,
You replied:
comingfrom wrote:
"The Saturn System" can STILL be observed in the present Sky. It is the crescent Milky Way contours of the northern Sky Milky Way Man, which seemingly revolves around the celestial pole.

The mountain of the gods is not visible anymore.
The gods went away.
.............
~Paul

Have you read my post:
"The Father God" - viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16207#p111942
Quote:
The Mythological and Astronomical explanation of the mytho-cosmological Saturn/Saturnus God is:

As the Earth orbits the Sun, the celestial imagery of the night changes throughout the seasons because of the changing altitude of the Sun. All celestial starry objects grows dimmer and disappears as the Sun ascends, and for some 3-4 months in the summer season, the stars, the constellations and the contours of the Milky Way disappears until the Sun descends later in the season.

This astronomical fact is embedded in the cosmological myths and it gives origin to the global mytheme of "The Departure and Return of the Celestial Deities". This explanation fits logically with the mythical description in the quotes above.

Just by observing the night Sky by yourself throughout the seasons, you STILL can see the ancient description of the celestial imagery. (When did you last do this?)
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:58 pm

Thanks Norman.

Have you read my post:
"The Father God" - viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16207#p111942

I did butt in on this thread on page 3, but I've read it now.

Just by observing the night Sky by yourself throughout the seasons, you STILL can see the ancient description of the celestial imagery. (When did you last do this?)
I live near the Anglo-Australian Observatory, and it is here because the sky is so clear here.
I observe the sky most nights, and the milky way never leaves.
It is always up there.
I know, if it is not presently visible, I just have to wait some hours for it to rise, or that it has just set.
But I cannot believe men ever thought it leaves, and then comes back.
And then thought that was so amazing, so let's make it our main god.

Neither would it cause the catastrophes and the concerns which the myths speak.
Neither can I imagine why men would have worshiped it as "Father-God".

It is called the milky way, because it looks like a way. Like a road, or a river, or a path.
It doesn't look like a man figure at all.

The myths also speak of the destruction which the gods/celestial bodies brought upon the earth.
How does your theory account for that?

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:17 pm

@Paul,
You replied:
I live near the Anglo-Australian Observatory, and it is here because the sky is so clear here.
I observe the sky most nights, and the milky way never leaves.
It is always up there.
I know, if it is not presently visible, I just have to wait some hours for it to rise, or that it has just set.

But I cannot believe men ever thought it leaves, and then comes back.

Thank you for giving me a feedback on the observable light conditions on the southern hemisphere. I live under the northern hemisphere and at the summer time, the Milky Way figure fades much away compared to the darker period of the seasons, where all details shows up again like on the image below.
Swedish rock Art..jpg
These outlines of the northern hemisphere Milky Way contours can be observed at its best season.
Swedish rock Art..jpg (16 KiB) Viewed 2060 times

Northern Hemisphere.04.jpg
Star Atlas Milky Way Contours
Northern Hemisphere.04.jpg (22.42 KiB) Viewed 2060 times

Regarding the southern hemisphere Milky Way contours, the light from this is of course much stronger because of the light in the galactic center, but I still guess the Sun to have some influence on observing the contours in the southern summer time by your own eyes?
And then thought that was so amazing, so let's make it our main god. Neither can I imagine why men would have worshiped it as "Father-God

Well, this seems to be the very case in the cultural Stories of Creation regarding the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE, but it is different on the southern hemisphere where the Milky Way contours represents the prime Mother Goddess, for instants the Egyptian goddess Hathor who is equal to the Roman goddess Venus as indicated by the star atlas image below.
Southern.04.jpg
Southern.04.jpg (21.63 KiB) Viewed 2060 times

Egyptian Milky Way Goddess.jpg
The Egyptian Milky Way Goddess Hathor/Nut

Neither would it cause the catastrophes and the concerns which the myths speak.

Correct. And I can´t find any Myths of Creation which speaks of any disasters - but I can read lots of authors who INTERPRET the myths as "worlds in collision" and another catastrophic configuration of the planets, which wouldn´t have been hypothesized in the first place if interpreting the Myths of Creation in their right context and connection to the correct celestial objects and astronomical motions.
It is called the milky way, because it looks like a way. Like a road, or a river, or a path.
It doesn't look like a man figure at all.

Yes the Milky Way is also named as a "river in the Sky". It is a River or Flood, running in the Sky OVER the Earth and all around the Earth, but scholars interprets this as "running all over ON the Earth, thus claiming this to be a global catastrophe of "a divine revenge". Just because the scholars have forgotten the Milky Way Mythology they go astray in all kinds of mythical and astronomical confusions and impossible hypothesis.
The myths also speak of the destruction which the gods/celestial bodies brought upon the earth.
How does your theory account for that?

As mentioned above, I can´t find any Myths of Creation where the celestial deities have caused any disasters on the Earth - except from some few meteors and the natural disasters, which occurs from time to time all over the Earth as "the birth labours of Mother Earth".

In my opinion, the only disaster is the general misinterpretation of Myths of Creation which is ascribed to planets instead of to the Milky Way deities.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:41 pm

Image

Norman,
It might help your cause here, if you could occasionally give the source links for your images, so that your interpretations could be collectively agreed upon.
just sayin...
seasmith
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Cargo » Fri Mar 11, 2016 7:50 pm

seasmith wrote:Image

Norman,
It might help your cause here, if you could occasionally give the source links for your images, so that your interpretations could be collectively agreed upon.
just sayin...


Take your pick: https://www.google.com/search?q=Egyptia ... 65&bih=829

Just saying..
Cargo
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:48 pm

Thanks Norman.

But now I know you're wrong, having personally met Nuit myself.
If you are familiar with scriptural terminology, She is Wisdom, our Holy Ghost.

Don't like to boast, but Jesus taught me how to invoke Her.

If you can stop you're thinking, She will send a descending force.

As mentioned above, I can´t find any Myths of Creation where the celestial deities have caused any disasters on the Earth - except from some few meteors and the natural disasters, which occurs from time to time all over the Earth as "the birth labours of Mother Earth".

In my opinion, the only disaster is the general misinterpretation of Myths of Creation which is ascribed to planets instead of to the Milky Way deities.
The Saturn model arose not from creation myths, but from other myths.
I agree that there is no disaster in the creation myths.

I suggest you read Worlds in Collision.
This book was the catalyst for the Saturn model. When Velikovsky wrote it, he didn't have a clear or complete model of what occurred yet, but he did much of the work of collecting and collating myths from around the world.

By reading this book, you get to see the scope and breadth of myths, and an inkling of the amount work the comparative mythologists have done. Critics and those who would propose an alternative have much work to do, before they convince any who have read up on Velikovsky.

Two things that that did come through clearly back then (he wrote that book in the early 1950s), was that Venus was a comet in historical times, before She settled into orbit. And the planets came into close contact on more than one occasion, hence the title of the book.

I read his books in the seventies, and I was pissed off that he was not even mentioned, in all my school education. Then I realized how some scholars get written out of history. There was no Internet back then, one could not just google and find more. And I didn't know anyone who was interested and knowledgeable to talk to, and Velikovsky sat on my back burner for 3 decades. It gladdened my heart when I learned that others carried on his work, and was able to come up with a more comprehensive picture of what happened in those times.

Is it all correct, what Talbot says? Probably not.
But people are going to have to do a lot of work, in order to come up with corrections.
Hand waving it away won't make it go away.

Be exceeding glad
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Sat Mar 12, 2016 1:13 am

@seasmith & Cargo,
Thanks for the linking advice. I really got the image by googling "goddess Nut" :D

I´ll give a further explanation in my reply to Paul.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:34 am

comingfrom wrote:Thanks Norman.
But now I know you're wrong, having personally met Nuit myself.
If you are familiar with scriptural terminology, She is Wisdom, our Holy Ghost.
Don't like to boast, but Jesus taught me how to invoke Her.
If you can stop you're thinking, She will send a descending force.

Well done Jesus! We indeed need to focus more on the female principles and qualities in the world. :D Very interesting with these spiritual inspirations and perceptions, to which I agree are possible and common. Yes I know Nuit/Nut represents the female wisdom of the creation. I´m sceptic of the Nuit as the "Holy Ghost", but never mind that for now.
The Saturn model arose not from creation myths, but from other myths.
I agree that there is no disaster in the creation myths.

I can understand your point here, because the connection to the "Saturn Model" and the Stories of Creation is never mentioned in this theory. All planets are given names from the Roman pantheon which deals with primeval deities who creates everything in the ancient known world, which includes knowledge and symbols of the Milky Way at it´s largest.

When using some of the context of these pantheon deities in order to construct the planetary Saturn Model, this model is of course build on Myths of Creation.
I suggest you read Worlds in Collision.
This book was the catalyst for the Saturn model. When Velikovsky wrote it, he didn't have a clear or complete model of what occurred yet, but he did much of the work of collecting and collating myths from around the world

Been there and done that. Immanuel Velikovsky is the main cause to the widespread planetary confusion by his "worlds in collision", for the same reasons of the Roman naming and deification of the planets. He wasn´t aware of the mythical extension of the ancient symbolism and knowledge of the creation, but interpreted it all as having planetary matters only, just like his followers.

Having said this, I acknowledge that he had some fine cosmological ideas, especially his "Cosmos without gravitation" - http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
By reading this book, you get to see the scope and breadth of myths, and an inkling of the amount work the comparative mythologists have done. Critics and those who would propose an alternative have much work to do, before they convince any who have read up on Velikovsky.

Yes, there are of course many mythical comparisons, but they are connected to the incorrect celestial objects.

Two things that that did come through clearly back then (he wrote that book in the early 1950s), was that Venus was a comet in historical times, before She settled into orbit. And the planets came into close contact on more than one occasion, hence the title of the book.

Is planet Venus a "she"? What are the logics of describing a planet as a woman? And what are the logics of describing other planets as a male gender? Here we are at the very core of the interpretative problem of the Roman naming of planets, given from their pantheon deities of creation.

There is no logical way anyone can imagin a planet having gendered shapes. You have to have a celestial shape of some kind, a star constellation or the contours of the Milky Way in order to imagine gendered shapes in the Sky. This is why, amongst many other cultures, the Egyptians imagined the Milky Way contours on the southern hemisphere as a "Great Woman in the night Sky".
Milky Way Contours.03.jpg
Southern & Northern Milky Way contours. Images of the prime deities.

This Milky Way "Mother Goddess" had different names through different cultural periods in Egypt, as for instants Nut/Nuit and Hathor. Hathor is equal to the Greek goddess Aphrodite and to the Roman Goddess Venus and as Hathor is specifically connected to the Milky Way contours, the Occam´s Razor principle also states goddess Venus to be a Milky Way goddess - and THEN the myth of Venus fits to the mythical context and to the correct celestial object of a female-looking shape in the Sky. Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor
Is it all correct, what Talbot says? Probably not.
But people are going to have to do a lot of work, in order to come up with corrections.
Hand waving it away won't make it go away.

We can all be excused for having a theory which interests us deeply - but there is no excuses when not taking all informations and logics into account for the theory - or for not wanting to do this.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby comingfrom » Sat Mar 12, 2016 8:52 am

Thank you, Norman.

Well done Jesus! We indeed need to focus more on the female principles and qualities in the world. :D Very interesting with these spiritual inspirations and perceptions, to which I agree are possible and common. Yes I know Nuit/Nut represents the female wisdom of the creation. I´m sceptic of the Nuit as the "Holy Ghost", but never mind that for now.
Wondered how you might take that. You are very understanding.

I can understand your point here, because the connection to the "Saturn Model" and the Stories of Creation is never mentioned in this theory. All planets are given names from the Roman pantheon which deals with primeval deities who creates everything in the ancient known world, which includes knowledge and symbols of the Milky Way at it´s largest.

When using some of the context of these pantheon deities in order to construct the planetary Saturn Model, this model is of course build on Myths of Creation.
I don't think the model came together until all the cultural myths were examined and cross referenced.

When they got the views from different perspectives from around the globe, they were able to get a "3D" picture, so to speak.

Been there and done that. Immanuel Velikovsky is the main cause to the widespread planetary confusion by his "worlds in collision", for the same reasons of the Roman naming and deification of the planets. He wasn´t aware of the mythical extension of the ancient symbolism and knowledge of the creation, but interpreted it all as having planetary matters only, just like his followers.
He was the pioneer. There were many more unknowns back then.

You speak as if you know way better than him,
yet every reference in every myth is the Milky Way, for you.

What reason do you give that men would make so many divergent stories all about that one celestial object?

Having said this, I acknowledge that he had some fine cosmological ideas, especially his "Cosmos without gravitation" - http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
Thanks for that link. Haven't read that yet.

Yes, there are of course many mythical comparisons, but they are connected to the incorrect celestial objects.
This seems to be your opinion.
As a one time amateur astrologer, they certainly seem like the correct assignments to me.

Is planet Venus a "she"? What are the logics of describing a planet as a woman? And what are the logics of describing other planets as a male gender? Here we are at the very core of the interpretative problem of the Roman naming of planets, given from their pantheon deities of creation.
This is actually a strong point of the model.

Whilst we now cannot see how genders are assigned to planets, globally the myths concur very strongly on the genders. Particularly with Venus and Mars. And therein was a big clue for Talbot and the others. The genders obviously came about by the roles they played, and so he had to come to understand those roles. In understanding those roles, the polar configuration took shape.

There is no logical way anyone can imagin a planet having gendered shapes. You have to have a celestial shape of some kind, a star constellation or the contours of the Milky Way in order to imagine gendered shapes in the Sky. This is why, amongst many other cultures, the Egyptians imagined the Milky Way contours on the southern hemisphere as a "Great Woman in the night Sky".
That is, if the current night sky was even visible. With so many planets so close by, the stars and milky way would hardly have been visible.

This Milky Way "Mother Goddess" had different names through different cultural periods in Egypt, as for instants Nut/Nuit and Hathor. Hathor is equal to the Greek goddess Aphrodite and to the Roman Goddess Venus and as Hathor is specifically connected to the Milky Way contours, the Occam´s Razor principle also states goddess Venus to be a Milky Way goddess - and THEN the myth of Venus fits to the mythical context and to the correct celestial object of a female-looking shape in the Sky. Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor
In your last post, you said they were calling the milky way Father-God.
Just by me calling Venus She, you have launched into saying the milky way was the female diety.

The thing is, the milky way is nothing to write home about, or make up stories for your children about.
But a comet that came into Earth's vicinity, and was hurling thunderbolts at the Earth, definitely was something to make up stories about. That was history, and a warning for future generations, of what they perceived was a possibility of occurring again.

A "fight" between Venus and Mars made the mythological headlines all around the world.

How do you read stuff like that in the Milky way?
Why did some cultures know Mars as "scarface"?
Why did they all say of Mars that he is the warrior, and the god of war?
And of Venus, that she is the mother goddess, and the god of love? (before she changed into a dragon, and rained destruction upon Earth)

These same archetypes are repeated faithfully all around the world.

We can all be excused for having a theory which interests us deeply - but there is no excuses when not taking all informations and logics into account for the theory - or for not wanting to do this.
Hey, I'm trying to take what you say into account.

It just isn't very convincing to me.
You've referenced mythology from only two cultures, Egyptian and Roman.
You state things like "wrong assignments" and "This Milky way ... had different names", but they are pretty empty statements.

If they were not always only referring to the Milky way (which to me is much more likely),
then you are the one missing the correct assignments.

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Sat Mar 12, 2016 9:56 am

@Paul,
First, by my comment
We can all be excused for having a theory which interests us deeply - but there is no excuses when not taking all informations and logics into account for the theory - or for not wanting to do this.

This was not an accusation against you - just a general remark.
You wrote:
I don't think the model came together until all the cultural myths were examined and cross referenced. When they got the views from different perspectives from around the globe, they were able to get a "3D" picture, so to speak.

I think it is the other way around. The myths rised everywhere on the Earth´s continents and later on these are compared.
You:
You speak as if you know way better than him (Edit: Immanuel Velikovsky), yet every reference in every myth is the Milky Way, for you.
What reason do you give that men would make so many divergent stories all about that one celestial object?

The reason is simply because the myths he used is connected to the Myths of Creation which is directly connected to the Milky Way - as described several times. This myth is known by all ancient cultures and it deals with the Milky Way imagery of both hemispheres i.e. both a Mother Goddess on the southern hemisphere and a Father God on the northern hemisphere. It is very obvious to me that these two large structures in the night Sky participates in the myths all over the world.
You:
Whilst we now cannot see how genders are assigned to planets, globally the myths concur very strongly on the genders. Particularly with Venus and Mars. And therein was a big clue for Talbot and the others. The genders obviously came about by the roles they played, and so he had to come to understand those roles. In understanding those roles, the polar configuration took shape.

Yes, globally myths concur very strongly on the genders - which is why these myths cannot be ascribed to planets. To claim otherwise is an asult on our ancestors observational skills.
You:
In your last post, you said they were calling the milky way Father-God.
Just by me calling Venus She, you have launched into saying the milky way was the female diety.

The big difference is that I´m calling the celestial gendered shape looking images of the Milky Way for Father God (nothern Sky) and Mother Goddess on the southern Sky - where you and other persons give those gendered names to planets which cannot depict anything else but white wandering dots in the Sky, which was exactly what our ancestors called the planets.
Milky Way Contours.03.jpg
It of course take some kind of a gendered shape in order to give celestial images and objects gendered names and qualities.

You:
It just isn't very convincing to me.
You've referenced mythology from only two cultures, Egyptian and Roman.

Of course this is not convincing for anyone who isn´t trained to analyze the myths in their full context and cosmological extension.

The only thing you can do is to use your common and logical sense when reading the myths and see if the fit logically and naturally into the theories.

I could have used myths from allmost all the other cultures, but since the Roman naming of planets is the big scoundrel here, I´m of course focused on this culture. Regarding the Egyptian culture, I use both a creation story, the Ogdoad, and the Milky Way goddess Hathor in order to describe the Milky Way connection in the global Myths of Creation. Here goddess Venus - NOT planet Venus - is equal to godddes Hathor. Logically goddess Venus is a Milky Way goddess.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Norman
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:18 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests