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 Apr 07, 2016 5:17 am

Subject: The Milky Way Ocean

From Picture of the day: “The Circular Ocean” - http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch ... rocean.htm - Contributed by Rens Van der Sluijs.
It is probably fair to say that the cosmological systems described by traditional societies around the world contain more features that do not make sense from a modern perspective than ones that do.

The perspective and sense is dependent of the investigating approach.
Contemporary members of indigenous societies will dwell on the phenomena of sunrise and the cycle of the moon and point out the Milky Way and a few notable constellations, but these statements are far outweighed by the excessive interest shown in a bevy of anomalous features
.
Anomalous features derives from an insufficient perspective in a theory.
The theme of an ocean following the circular perimeter of the earth is widespread, and in quite a few cases, the enclosing body of water is itself envisioned as a “ring” or river. The Egyptians had such a concept, portraying the god Osiris in his “watery” aspect as the personification of the circular ocean: “… you are hale and great in your name of ‘Sea’; behold, you are great and round in <your name of> ‘Ocean’; behold, you are circular and round as the circle which surrounds the Ḥзw-nbwt …”, says a spell in the Pyramid Texts.

When knowing of the Milky Way Mythology and its´symbols, this "ring or river" is obvious. In the Norse Mythology this is called the Midgaard Serpent which encircles the Earth up in the Sky.

The Milky Way is also mentioned as "a river which runs all around the Earth in the Sky" in several cultures. The assumed "Flood Myth catastrophe" is a misinterpretation of this mytho-cosmological description of the Milky Way.
The Greek historian Herodotus bemoaned his compatriots for “foolishly” perpetuating the myth of the circular ocean, in the face of current knowledge: “And I laugh to see how many have ere now drawn maps of the world, not one of them showing the matter reasonably; for they draw the world as round as if fashioned by compasses, encircled by the river of Ocean . . .

But the concept remained popular for millennia afterwards, in countries far outside the sphere of Greek influence. As an example, the people of Benin contended until recently that “the water surrounds the earth around its entire convex surface”. And the Pueblo people of New Mexico “believe the earth to be circular and surrounded on all sides by the ocean.

Nice ancient cosmological descriptions of the Milky Way River . . . and who is now the laughing stock?
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 » Mon Apr 11, 2016 5:52 am

Subject: “Mother Goddess & the Dragon”

From "Remembering the End of the World" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clq-GiqvL9o
In timestamp 3:05 in this video, the Egyptian goddess Hathor is mentioned as an example of the planet Venus and Comet Venus.

It is very strange that anyone with interest in Comparative Mythology can study the Egyptian goddess Hathor without noticing the prime mytho-astronomical attribute of goddess Hathor.


The Egyptian goddess Hathor has nothing to do with planet Venus or a comet. "She" is specifically associated with the Milky Way and the creation of everything in our galaxy. Read of this here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor#Re ... nd_symbols

The Greek goddess Aphrodite and the Roman goddess Venus is equal to goddess Hathor and subsequently should be associated with the Milky Way imagery and the MIlky Way formation and not with planet Venus or a Comet.

The Roman Empire dubbed the planets after the Roman Pantheon as a commemoration of their primeval deities when adopting Christianity.

This has lead scholars to believe that planets are the real deities, which of course is a huge distortion of both the ancient myths and the astronomical conditions, thus ascribing the primeval and archetypical myths to planets instead of to the Milky Way realms as clearly indicated and stated by the explanation of the Egyptian goddess Hathor.
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 » Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:16 am

Subject: The Comet Venus - Video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FbbcGpcFNs

I´m asking:
Timestamp 5:50 - What are the mytho-astronomical logical explanations of seeing planet Venus as a feminine planet and the Mother of Goddess?

So far no replies . . .

Riotboy1 asks:
I don't understand how could Venus come from Jupiter.

My reply:
+Riotboy1
This (planetary) assumption is based on the mythical interpretation of "Goddess Venus born from the primeval god Jupiter" where Venus should have "sprung out of Jupiter’s forehead".

Another explanation of the birth of Venus states this goddess to be created out of the cosmic sea = i. e. the "primordial (Milky Way) waters", just like the Greek goddess Aphrodite.

IMO, the planetary interpretation of this myth is misunderstood because of a simple lack of mythical knowledge of the Milky Way, which is mentioned as the Heavenly River (the cosmic sea) where the Venus Goddess derives from the Milky Way center.

The Egyptian goddess Hathor is equal to the Greek goddess Aphrodite and the Roman goddess Venus - and as goddess Hathor resembles the Milky Way contours on the southern hemisphere, goddess Venus also belongs to the Milky Way realms. Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor

Unfortunately, modern scholars interpret the ancient myths to deal with planets only, thus confusing both the ancient myths and their factual astronomical conditions, assuming different planetary catastrophic positions and motions which have never taken place.

This mythical confusion of planets and the deities of the Milky Way doesn´t of course discard the scientific idea and observation of planet Venus showing up a cometary tail.
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 Apr 22, 2016 3:21 pm

OK then Norman, I will reply.

Norman wrote:So far no replies . . .
Because all previous replies have been soundly rejected.

No matter what anyone says,
the Milky Way was the inspiration for all myth, as well as the cause of past catastrophic events on earth.

Unfortunately, modern scholars interpret the ancient myths to deal with planets only, thus confusing both the ancient myths and their factual astronomical conditions, assuming different planetary catastrophic positions and motions which have never taken place.
Unfortunately, modern scholars don't consider the myths at all.
They are not treated as scientific evidence, or even as actual testimony.

Modern science teaches us that the history of earth was a slow gradual progression and evolution till now, with the last real catastrophe being an asteroid which wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
No worlds in collision. No upheaval in earth. Just periodic ice ages.

You are saying early men sat around campfires gazing up at the Milky Way, to dream up their myths,
and so formed the global archetypes.

~~
I'm not sure why you can't see why your proposal is so unbelievable.
What dramatic events could have occurred in the Milky Way to awe men so and inspire them to make such lasting stories, and deify it?

Talbot continually reminds us, there is nothing out there now, which explains the myths. Because we have a different sky now. And the symbols of the myths have since been projected onto what see now, such as the Milky Way, or some local mountain.

Which makes logical sense.
Especially since his model also explains so much celestial phenomena which was hitherto unexplained.

Sincerely
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Sun Apr 24, 2016 4:24 am

Hello Paul and thanks for your reply.
Because all previous replies have been soundly rejected.

I don´t know about "soundly rejected" :D
No matter what anyone says, the Milky Way was the inspiration for all myth, as well as the cause of past catastrophic events on earth.

Yes, the inspiration of the numerous Stories of Creation is without any doubts connected to the Milky Way. But the "catastrophic events theory" in the TBP derives from interpreting the forceful powers of creation as disasters, which is a contradiction in itself. The overall creation is not disastrous, but fantastic and wonderful.

I wrote:
Unfortunately, modern scholars interpret the ancient myths to deal with planets only, thus confusing both the ancient myths and their factual astronomical conditions, assuming different planetary catastrophic positions and motions which have never taken place.

Unfortunately, modern scholars don't consider the myths at all. They are not treated as scientific evidence, or even as actual testimony.

No, most moderns scholars don´t consider the myths at all, but surely the scholarly proponents of the "planetary catastrophic events" do consider the (planetary) myths as scientific circumstances and testimonies, which are implied in the theory of "once an alien Sky".
You are saying early men sat around campfires gazing up at the Milky Way, to dream up their myths, and so formed the global archetypes.

Yes I am. And so would you and all others if being in close contact to nature and all its motions on the Earth and in the Sky. I admit that many ancient inspirations of the creation have derived from dreams and visions, which is quite normal as we all are connected to the creation. (You also can read of such visionary events in the Bible)
But otherwise, our ancestors got most of the information just by using their physical senses in order to empirically mark the different celestial motions and the seasonal changes and imply these information’s in their myths.

The Sun is of course very important to mark. And so are the stars and star constellations, seemingly revolving around the celestial poles on both hemispheres. And, as our ancestors imagined the Milky Way contours as human looking beings, the crescent shape of the Milky Way revolving around the celestial poles were/are very important, representing the prime male and female deities and archetypes.
Milky Way God North.gif
Milky Way God North.gif (41.3 KiB) Viewed 4083 times

Milky Way Goddess South.01.gif

I'm not sure why you can't see why your proposal is so unbelievable. What dramatic events could have occurred in the Milky Way to awe men so and inspire them to make such lasting stories, and deify it?

I would say the large crescent Milky Way contours are very impressive (awe full) indeed, and so thought our ancestors too and they surely deified the Milky Way contours. Why don´t you see this believable and obvious proposal which is confirmed by the image below?
Egyptian Milky Way Goddess.jpg
Goddess Hathor/Nut - Equal to the Roman goddess Venus.

Your "What dramatic events could have occurred in the Milky Way" is based on the assumptions that the Myths of Creation deals only with planets instead of the Milky Way and Constellation Mythology. Replacing these myths to planetary conditions of course demands a theory which dramatically distorts the myths and relocate the planets to places that they never have been.
Talbot continually reminds us, there is nothing out there now, which explains the myths. Because we have a different sky now. And the symbols of the myths have since been projected onto what see now, such as the Milky Way, or some local mountain.

Of course Talbott and others states, "there is nothing out there now" which fits the ancient world view - since they don´t observe what our ancestors really did observe.
Which makes logical sense. Especially since his model also explains so much celestial phenomena which was hitherto unexplained.

The Talbott explanations seemingly makes much logical sense because of David Talbott´s excellent mythical comparative skills - unfortunately he, and other "catastrophists" connect the myths to inferior planets which hardly are mentioned in the Myths of Creation. This is very difficult for "non-mythicians" to analyze and falsify, so many readers and listeners just believe this dogma.

Everything what our ancestors observed is STILL out there now. The present Sky is very much the same as the one our ancestors observed. It all depend of taking the Myths of Creation seriously and connect their contents to the correct celestial objects and motions.

If doing so, the ancient Myths of Creation excellently can support the strict scientific part of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology.
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 » Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:57 pm

What about all the other myths, Norman?

Every culture did have a creation myth, but every culture also had many myths.
You appear to categorize all myth as creation myth.

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:04 am

Paul, you asked:
comingfrom wrote:What about all the other myths, Norman?

Every culture did have a creation myth, but every culture also had many myths.
You appear to categorize all myth as creation myth.

Paul, the proponents of the "planetary catastrophism" uses archetypical myths which derives from the primeval telling of the creation where gods and goddesses, i.e. "creative forces and objects", participates in the creation, so of course I focus on the cultural creation myths in my analysis and arguments.

The catastrophism proponents uses qualitative forces, attributes, celestial location and appearance of these primeval and superior deities of creation, (the Roman Pantheon deities) but they ascribe these qualities and cosmological locations to planets only because of the Roman naming of planets when the empire adopted Christianity, where they had to abandon their pantheon deities for the One (invisible) God only, but giving the planets commemorational names of their pantheon. - Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constanti ... t_of_Milan
Solar System.jpg
The Mytho-Cosmological World Picture of the catastrophism proponents.

This is the very narrow cosmological World Picture of the catastrophism proponents. They interpret the myths of creation with a focus on planets only, but their mytho-cosmological references belongs to a much larger World Picture and a much wider and different cosmological realm.
Milky Way.jpg
The Mytho-Cosmological World Picture of our Ancestors.

According to several myths already posted here, our ancestors evidently and clearly had a cosmological World Picture knowledge of the Milky Way and it´s formation as noted here:

1) The Egyptian goddess Hathor (equal to the Roman goddess Venus and the Greek goddess Aphrodite) is associated with the Milky Way. Subsequently and logically goddesses Venus and Aphrodite also have to be associated with the MIlky Way.- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor

2) The Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad, describes the pro-creation of the Milky Way center where the first fiery light, the Atum-Ra god of light, is the first entity to be created in the Milky Way center. (Atum-Ra and goddess Hathor have a complex relationship in the creation = Milky Way matters) Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogdoad#In ... _mythology

3) In the Hindu Mount Meru myth of the Cosmic Mountain, "the Sun along with all the planets in the Solar System revolve around Mount Meru as one unit" = around the Milky Way center, as observed by modern telescopes. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru#Hindu_legends

If working seriously, methodically and honestly with the mythical comparative method, these 3 clear mytho-cosmological evidential texts should in fact be sufficient enough to discard the "planetary polar configuration" ideas.

Notes:
In the Electric Universe context, this central "fiery light of creation" in the Ogdoad creation story, can be described by modern terms with the cosmological Bennet Z-Pinch effect which creates huge electromagnetic gamma rays in the galactic center.

Goddess Hathor and god Atum-Ra have a "complex relationship" in the Egyptian story of creation and "together they created everything" in the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way, according to the Milky Way goddess Hathor. That is: The equality of goddess Hathor and goddess Venus logically connects both to the Milky Way and NOT to planet Venus, as falsely assumed by the planetary catastrophic proponents


The mytho-cosmological misinterpretation of planetary issues demands significant astronomical manipulations and speculations in order to fit the (not needed) "planetary polar configuration hypothesis" and these highly speculative manipulations will haunt the general TBP and delay the public development of the otherwise very fine and strict scientifical EU cosmological model.
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 nick c » Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:34 am

Ivar,
There is so much about your proposal that does not make sense. It seems that you are simply denying what the myth makers said and rewriting it to fit your preexisting idea.

-The Milky Way in mythology is not generally an important participant or active character. It is more of a part of the celestial landscape, often described as a river. As an analogy it is a part of a set on the stage, it is not one of the actors in the play.

The only way you manage to assign an important role to the Milky Way is by saying that when mythmakers said "Venus" they meant Milky Way, when they said "Saturn" they meant the Milky Way, etc.
This flies in the face of the myths themselves where they are clearly talking about celestial bodies that moved with respect to the fixed celestial landscape of constellations, of which the Milky Way is one part. The Milky Way is (as are the fixed stars and constellations) part of the landscape through which the main characters (planets, Moon, Sun, comets) move.

-Why would myth makers use the names for planets to refer to the Milky Way when they already possessed names for the Milky Way?

-Why would they have said "Venus" when they really meant "Milky Way?"

-Have you considered that when the myth makers spoke of Venus, Mars, Saturn, etc., they may have been actually referring to Venus, Mars, Saturn, etc.?

-If those deities referred to the Milky Way as you propose, then what were the names for or deities assigned to the planets?


-You speak of the importance of the group of myths which were mistakenly labeled by 19th C mythologists as "Creation Myths" and give your own bizarre interpretation of the meaning of these myths - that they reflect the story of the Sun/solar system's creation in the center of the Milky Way.

While there may be star creation occurring near the galactic center, it is also quite common in the spiral arms. This commonly takes place in molecular (plasma) clouds such as the Orion Nebula (which is also far from the galactic center.) There is no reason, given the distance involved, to assume that the Sun was born in the galactic center. It probably was born in one of many molecular clouds in a spiral arm. So if that is the case, then your premise that the body of myth describes a creation process in the galactic center is based on an incorrect assumption.

Furthermore, I do not think that there is any substantiation for the assertion that the ancients understood that Milky Way was a galaxy and our Sun was one of many millions of stars contained within. Astrological and mythological understanding has to be distinguished from modern astronomical knowledge. That modern understanding simply did not exist until its' beginnings in Helenistic times, when a minority of philosophers such as Eratosthenes began to theorize and understand the Earth's astronomical position. Of course the mythological lexicon was already ancient by the time of Eratosthenes, but even him and his colleagues did not comprehend the "big picture" that is, the true nature of galaxies and the Sun's position as a component of the galaxy.
How could makers of myth know of something totally foreign to and beyond anything in their experience?

-The Sun is presently 25,000 light years from the galactic center. Assuming that it originated in the galactic center (which is debatable) then that creation event would have to have taken place millions of years before the myth makers existed.
The Sun travels through the galaxy in a path that does not seem to project back to the galactic center, but even if it did, at the observed velocity it would take millions of years to travel 25, 000 ly, which is about 1/4 the diameter of the entire galaxy.

-How could myth makers have known of this alleged event if it occurred millions of years before they existed?
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Apr 26, 2016 2:48 pm

Velikovsky would probably have faded into obscurity, and the Saturn model would not have been discovered, had he been wrong.

But instead, even mainstream had to take a second look at him, because his apparently wild predictions turned out to be right.

Velikovsky was able to arrive at these scientific facts about the planet Venus, that she would be hotter than expected, and that she would have a thick atmosphere, from interpreting Venus of the myths to be the planet, and not the milky Way.

Venus' retrograde and slowing spin is more evidence that she is relatively new in her current orbit.

The Saturn model is a discovery, not an invention.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:45 pm

Hello Nick and thanks for your reply.

You:
There is so much about your proposal that does not make sense. It seems that you are simply denying what the myth makers said and rewriting it to fit your preexisting idea.

As I´ve told you several times: It is not "my idea". It derives from reading existing collective myths as for instants these three sentences:
1) The Egyptian goddess Hathor (equal to the Roman goddess Venus and the Greek goddess Aphrodite) is associated with the Milky Way. Subsequently and logically goddesses Venus and Aphrodite also have to be associated with the Milky Way.- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor
2) The Egyptian story of creation, the Ogdoad, describes the pro-creation of the Milky Way center where the first fiery light, the Atum-Ra god of light, is the first entity to be created in the Milky Way center. (Atum-Ra and goddess Hathor have a complex relationship in the creation = Milky Way matters) Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogdoad#In ... _mythology
3) In the Hindu Mount Meru myth of the Cosmic Mountain, "the Sun along with all the planets in the Solar System revolve around Mount Meru as one unit" = around the Milky Way center, as observed by modern telescopes. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru#Hindu_legends

If you work with the Milky Way goddess Hathor and Atum-Ra from the Ogdoad creation story, you logically cannot come to any other conclusions that this story deals with the pre-creaton of the Milky Way where these two deities "creates everything" = in the Milky Way.

Furthermore: Just by reading the linked Mount Meru myth, the only and logical conclusion is that this myth deals with the Milky Way center and not with any "polar configuration". The entire Solar System doesn´t orbit around the Earth celestial pole, but around the Milky Way center, right?

You:
The only way you manage to assign an important role to the Milky Way is by saying that when mythmakers said "Venus" they meant Milky Way, when they said "Saturn" they meant the Milky Way, etc.

Partly correct. When I speak of Venus or Saturn, I´m not referring to the entire Milky Way, because goddess Venus represents the southern hemisphere Milky Way contours (as goddess Hathor) and the Saturnus god represent the northern hemisphere MIlky Way contours, both seemingly revolving around the celestial poles/axis.

You:
-Why would myth makers use the names for planets to refer to the Milky Way when they already possessed names for the Milky Way?

I´ve asked myself the very same question for a long time and my answer is: Because of the Roman adoption of Christianity they had to abandon their Milky Way pantheon deities but they gave some of the names to planets instead as a commemoration. This have fooled lots of scholars to state the Milky Way deities as being planetary deities.

"Mythmakers" did not use the names for planets to refer to the Milky Way, they of course really meant the Milky Way when using the superior pantheon deity names.
-Why would they have said "Venus" when they really meant "Milky Way?"

When speaking of goddess Venus they of course meant the southern hemisphere Milky Way contours which resembles the Mother Goddess as the Egyptian goddess Hathor.
-Have you considered that when the myth makers spoke of Venus, Mars, Saturn, etc., they may have been actually referring to Venus, Mars, Saturn, etc.?

Yes, and I was forced to abandon this idea because the creation myths don´t specifically speak of any other planets but the Earth. Besides this, no attributes and creative powers of creation can be asribed to planets and the Roman gendered naming of planets really reveals the truth of the planetary misinterpretation. No sound human being can imagine a planet as other that a bright dot in the Sky.
-If those deities referred to the Milky Way as you propose, then what were the names for or deities assigned to the planets?

The planets were originally just given names after their natural appearance and motion and in general just called “wandering stars”.

The naming of the planets - From - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#Myt ... and_naming
“The names for the planets in the Western world are derived from the naming practices of the Romans, which ultimately derive from those of the Greeks and the Babylonians.

The original Greek planetary names derived from their natural appearances and motions.

1) Phainon , ”the shiner” = The later Roman Saturn
2) Phaethon, “bright” = The later roman Jupiter
3) Pyroeis “the fiery” = The later Roman Mars
4) Phosphoros, “the light bringer” = The later Roman Venus
5) Stilbon, “the gleamer” = The later Roman Mercury

In ancient Greece, the two great luminaries the Sun and the Moon were called Helios and Selene; the farthest planet (Saturn) was called Phainon, the shiner; followed by Phaethon (Jupiter), "bright"; the red planet (Mars) was known as Pyroeis, the "fiery"; the brightest (Venus) was known as Phosphoros, the light bringer; and the fleeting final planet (Mercury) was called Stilbon, the gleamer.

Today, most people in the western world know the planets by names derived from the Olympian pantheon of gods.

Maybe except from the catastrophism proponents . . . or they just don´t know what "the Olympian pantheon of gods" refers to.

You
-You speak of the importance of the group of myths which were mistakenly labeled by 19th C mythologists as "Creation Myths" and give your own bizarre interpretation of the meaning of these myths - that they reflect the story of the Sun/solar system's creation in the center of the Milky Way.

This is a logical conclusion, as the solar System is an integrated part of the galactic rotation.

You:
Furthermore, I do not think that there is any substantiation for the assertion that the ancients understood that Milky Way was a galaxy and our Sun was one of many millions of stars contained within. Astrological and mythological understanding has to be distinguished from modern astronomical knowledge. That modern understanding simply did not exist until its' beginnings in Helenistic times, when a minority of philosophers such as Eratosthenes began to theorize and understand the Earth's astronomical position. Of course the mythological lexicon was already ancient by the time of Eratosthenes, but even him and his colleagues did not comprehend the "big picture" that is, the true nature of galaxies and the Sun's position as a component of the galaxy.

Quote from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way ... _and_Roman

The Greek name for the Milky Way (Γαλαξίας Galaxias) is derived from the word for milk (γάλα, gala). One legend explains how the Milky Way was created by Heracles when he was a baby. His father, Zeus, was fond of his son, who was born of the mortal woman Alcmene. He decided to let the infant Heracles suckle on his divine wife Hera's milk when she was asleep, an act which would endow the baby with godlike qualities. When Hera woke up and realized that she was breastfeeding an unknown infant, she pushed him away and the spurting milk became the Milky Way.

Do you deny the Milky Way connection here too? And what about this from the same link:
A story told by the Roman Hyginus in the Poeticon astronomicon (ultimately based on Greek myth) says that the milk came from the goddess Ops (Greek Rhea), or Opis, the wife of Saturn (Greek Cronus). Saturn swallowed his children to ensure his position as head of the Pantheon and sky god, and so Ops conceived a plan to save her newborn son Jupiter (Greek Zeus): She wrapped a stone in infant's clothes and gave it to Saturn to swallow. Saturn asked her to nurse the child once more before he swallowed it, and the milk that spurted when she pressed her nipple against the rock eventually became the Milky Way.

How do you explain this? Does planet Saturn have a wife, Opis? And how can your asserted planet god Saturn have any role in the making of the Milky Way?

You see? The Milky Way references are all over the places. Exept from in the TBP.

You:
How could makers of myth know of something totally foreign to and beyond anything in their experience?

They obviously had. It´s noted in their myths for those who are open minded and have no other agenda.
-How could myth makers have known of this alleged event if it occurred millions of years before they existed?

If the Electric Universe Theory was fully elaborated, it would also deal with the electric fact of atoms and electricity in human beings and their ability to connect to the universal electric entanglement. Link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

If consciously and spiritually connected, anyone today and in the future can still get the information of the creation in our Milky Way and beyond and this is NOT time-depended as time is a human invention and not universal.
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 » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:56 pm

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your reply.

Velikovsky would probably have faded into obscurity, and the Saturn model would not have been discovered, had he been wrong.

Velikovsky is mostly visible today because of his followers who also fails to interpret the ancient myths.
But instead, even mainstream had to take a second look at him, because his apparently wild predictions turned out to be right.

Undeniably, Velikovsky had some predictions which is worth a second look, especially his "Cosmos without Gravitation". Link - http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
Velikovsky was able to arrive at these scientific facts about the planet Venus, that she would be hotter than expected, and that she would have a thick atmosphere, from interpreting Venus of the myths to be the planet, and not the milky Way.

If you interpret goddess Venus as representing the nuclear formation in the central Milky Way light, as our ancestors did, I can assure your of a temperature which is very high indeed. This is what Velikovsky should have been focused on in the Venus myth.
Venus' retrograde and slowing spin is more evidence that she is relatively new in her current orbit.

Firstly, planet Venus is not a "she". It´s just a white wandering dot in the Sky. And Velikovsky missed the real myth of goddess Venus, so his assumptions of planet Venus´ birth from planet Jupiter is utterly nonsense.
The Saturn model is a discovery, not an invention.

Yes the Saturnus Model is real - If you connect this myth to its correct celestial object and motion around the celestial pole as still observable today.
Milky Way God North.gif
Milky Way God North.gif (41.3 KiB) Viewed 3971 times

Which of the object above and below looks best as a shape which can be described as a male god in the Sky?
Planet Saturn.jpg
Planet Saturn.jpg (4.46 KiB) Viewed 3971 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 » Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:56 pm

I took your ideas outside for meditative strolls under the evening sky, Norman,

and, I did not see Venus, or Hathor, or any gods, in the Milky Way.
Neither did I see anything which could be related to, or might have inspired, the dramatic events recorded in the myths.

Even your "nuclear formation of the central Milky Way" is not discernible to the naked eye.
And I live in a good area for viewing the night sky (near the Anglo-Australian Observatory).
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Sun May 01, 2016 1:40 am

Hello Paul,
. . . and, I did not see Venus, or Hathor, or any gods, in the Milky Way.

It´s only a question of having read the myths of creation and their connected symbols. Remember, our ancestors did use human known images in order to describe the Universe.
Neither did I see anything which could be related to, or might have inspired, the dramatic events recorded in the myths.

Neither can I, because the only events recorded in the Myths of Creation is benign - and very forceful.
Even your "nuclear formation of the central Milky Way" is not discernible to the naked eye.

Just think of the observed huge eletromagnetic powers radiatiing from the galactic center, creating very strong gamma rays.

This huge electromagnetic force is, for instants, described in the ancient Egytian myth of creation as Atum-Ra, the first "fiery entity of light", which creates everything in the Milky Way together with the goddess Hathor.
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 » Mon May 02, 2016 7:33 am

Norman,
You are saying there is a connection [myths with the Milky Way], one only need read the myths,
but you end saying I just have to think it up.

Don't look up and try find the connection?

The myth makers couldn't even have known the Milky Way was a galaxy
(unless you believe they had technology equal or superior to nowadays - I guess plenty do believe that).

There is plenty of war and death and destruction throughout mythology.

The thing is, catastrophe theory gives us a reason why the myths originated in the first place, and why they persisted, and why they are similar from culture to culture worldwide. It also explains why we cannot relate them today, to what we see today.

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP

Unread postby Norman » Mon May 02, 2016 8:29 am

Paul,
You are saying there is a connection [myths with the Milky Way], one only need read the myths,
but you end saying I just have to think it up.

No, I´m saying you have to have the human method of depicting someting in mind when you try to descipher the myths when you look up and try to find the connections.
The myth makers couldn't even have known the Milky Way was a galaxy (unless you believe they had technology equal or superior to nowadays - I guess plenty do believe that).

You don´t seem to take my evidently posts seriously. Try to ponder thoroughly over this text from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meru#Hindu_legends
Mount Meru of Hindu traditions has clearly mythical aspects, . . . and notes that the Sun along with all the planets in the Solar System revolve around Mount Meru as one unit.

What is it that our entire Solar System is orbiting around? Of course the Milky Way center, right? How did the Hindu culture (and other cultures) knew this without having technical instruments?
There is plenty of war and death and destruction throughout mythology.

If you read the ancient myths of creation as "divine personal matters", it can seem so, yes. But if reading the myths in modern terms, the myths just describes how different forces mingles up in the creation.
The thing is, catastrophe theory gives us a reason why the myths originated in the first place, and why they persisted, and why they are similar from culture to culture worldwide. It also explains why we cannot relate them today, to what we see today.

Isn´t this funny? You believe firmly in myths when it comes to the "planetary catastrophic matters" - but you ignore my posted mythical quotes, even if they are in clear text and their meaning are fairly obvious?
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 3 guests