Lloyd wrote:We have to be careful not to violate the Forum rules against discussing religion or politics. I don't think we've violated them significantly yet, but I mention them so as to hopefully avoid getting some of our posts or the entire thread censored.
I do not see how discussing the theology of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures could violate the forum rules in this thread. Intrinsic to the discussion of the Hebrew Scriptures is the Hebrew's religion,
and, by extension employment of the Jewish theological tradition in the later Christian tradition and divergence therefrom. One should not separate the texts from the theological traditions, otherwise all one is doing is ignoring the voice of the original author to their original audience, warts and all. The same can be said of the discussion of any other mythohistorical/religious record, be it Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Mayan, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Muslim or any other. Religion/theology is intrinsic
to the discussion because the accounts describe to the activity of the gods
, be it the inivisble Creator God of Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism or the visible planet-plasma gods of other world traditions. To exclude it a-priori (even for the sake of some forum rule) is to ignore the entire narrative thrust of a given textual, ritual, mythological or religious tradition, not to mention that theology is my own personal, specialist area of intellectual pursuit.
That said, I do respect the moderators and have refrained myself exceedingly (and will continue to do so) from expounding upon the evangelical details of my personal beliefs. If anyone wants to know they can ask me via PMs at their own volition.
Point 1: ARETZ/ERETZ
Lloyd wrote:I think all of the 13 biblical examples that you cite for aretz referring to our planet Earth can equally be regarded as referring to the ancient Saturn configuration and I believe Saturnists have made arguments for all or nearly all of them, i.e. regarding animals, Adam, Noah, floodwaters etc.
Similar to above, to make this claim is to run contrary
to the overall thrust of the Hebrew Biblical narrative/theology and represents the imposition of Saturnian theory upon the ancient Hebrew worldview where I will resolutely state that it simply does not belong. It is eisegesis (reading into the text) of the worst kind.
I feel I will need to make this rebuttal at length, so do be patient. When I introduced the Hebrew concept of aretz
, earth/land/ground, I was demonstrating the starting point of an unbroken strand of theology that runs from Genesis 1:1 through the entire Tanakh. I elucidated only
13 points from Genesis for the sake of brevity; the word aretz
occurs 2,502 times across the entire Hebrew-Aramaic corpus and it would take an entire (boring) book for me to describe the theological nuances of each reference.
In almost every instance (I will not say 'all' because I have not gone through every single one to check) of the word aretz
in the Hebrew scriptures, it refers to some aspect of terrestrial Earth
, be it the whole earth (eg. Gen 1:1; 6:17), a particular country, land or region on that earth (eg. Gen 4:16; 12:1), a specific inheritance or allocated portion of a land or region (eg. Gen 13:17; Deut 5:33; Joshua 1:6, 13:7, etc), or 'ground' or 'dirt' in general (eg. Gen 2:7; 18:2). Obviously, the above references are a handful of samples of an enormous number demonstrating this point. The only obvious exception I could think of was Isaiah 65:17 where the prophet declares that God shall create a "new heavens and a new earth", but even then I still think the terrestrial-focused Hebrew importance of land
, that is, what rests under one's feet (which in itself is a metaphor used of God's ownership of the terrestrial ball: Isaiah 66:1) and is not referring to a 'heavenly earth'.
To suggest that 'earth' in Genesis 1 refers to Saturn is simply an unsustainable assumption and hostile to the Hebrew theological emphasis and importance of land/possession/inheritance/property that runs the length and breadth of the Hebrew corpus. Aretz
in the Hebrew Scriptures almost never
refers to anything in the sky, and the only reason I put 'almost' here is because I do not have time today to comb through all 2,502 references of aretz
in the Tanakh so as to confirm it is indeed 'never'.
I will agree and affirm that other
mytho-theological traditions, such as Egypt, Babylon, etc, as highlighted first in Talbott's The Saturn Myth
, do demonstrate an emphasis on cosmography and the role of the 'celestial earth' in their respective religious traditions. The Hebrew Bible is not such a tradition, and to force that assumption upon it is to utterly ignore the united voice of their combined corpus of texts, be it the Torah, the Prophets or the Writings. Eden is a place on this earth
, not in heaven. Zion is a mountain desired on this earth,
not in heaven. Jerusalem is a city for David's lineage on this earth,
not in heaven. I understand that esoteric Jewish traditions, especially those cited by Talbott, Cardona and Cook, diverge significantly and portray celestial emphases on a heavenly Eden, heavenly Zion, heavenly Jerusalem, etc, but these remain mystical interpretations
of the Hebrew texts and do not necessarily portray the intended theology
of the ancient Hebrew worldview emphasis of land/country/earth/inheritance on this earth
, one of the
most central themes of the entire Scriptures.
This tradition diverges somewhat when one anaylses the Christian Greek scriptures (especially chapters 21-22 of book of Revelation and Hebrews 11:8-10; 12:22-23 with the New Jerusalem coming from Heaven), but that is an argument and analysis I have not yet had time to research in depth. But this change in emphasis from earthly to heavenly in the New Testament has little to do with the ancient Hebrew understanding of 'earth' in Genesis 1. The only way one can suggest that Earth = Saturn, Heaven = Saturn, El(ohim) = Saturn and YHWH = Saturn, as Talbott, Cardona, Cook and others claim, is to utterly ignore the religious/theological overtones of the whole Hebrew narrative. I believe Brigit Bara might share this significant criticism of Saturnian Configuration theory.
Point 2: OUR CATASTROPHIST VIEWS
Lloyd wrote:JP, you seem to favor Velikovsky's model quite a bit. He regarded Earth as having been a moon of Saturn until Saturn clashed with Jupiter and the two bodies moved away, followed by Earth encounters with Venus twice in the 1400s BC and with Mars about 700 years later.
Correct, but more likely because I am reading Velikovsky for the first time right now alongside Talbott, Cardona, Cook, van der Sluijs and Peratt. Velikovsky treats the Biblical material more rigorously than the others, which is perhaps why I have natural deferrence to his position. I am still 50 years behind where some of the rest of you are (i've been engaged with Saturnian/EU theory since only September this year) and haven't even gotten to specific criticisms of Velikovsky's model, or even what the final version of his model looked like. Go easy on me, eh?
Lloyd wrote:...you don't seem to accept that Earth, Venus and Mars were in polar axial alignment with Saturn's poles.
This is incorrect, as I have clearly stated elsewhere
JP Michael wrote:Where I think Baumgartner gets it wrong is that he supposes a planetoid was orbiting around the Earth at the time of the Flood. I think Earth was that 'planetoid', and it was orbiting the flaring proto-sun Saturn as its plasmasheath came into contact with the Sun's. Perhaps it took Baumgartner's six passes of Earth around it's flaring parent star before Earth finally became locked in a fixed position relative to Saturn's south pole (think Shoemaker-Levy 9 when it formed its 'shish-kebob' before collision with Jupiter: that linear formation took time to organise electrically). I posit this occurred at the mid-point of the flood (Gen 8:2-4) when the raging waters were calmed and abatement began.
I further posit, like others before me, that Earth retained this position for some centuries after the Flood, spawning the plethora of 'creation' and polestar/axis mundi myth worldwide before the Saturnian configuration, that 'shish-kabob' of planets, finally broke up and plunged both Earth and the other planets into a period of eccentric orbits that, again, took some centuries of collision and readjustment to finally stabilise to the present system circa ~700 BCE.
I will see if I can crystalise my views for you 'soon' (ie, within the next few months at least, years at most!!), but I have such very little time to research, compile and collate my notes alongside my full-time work schedule and interacting with all you fine folks on here. As much as I would love to quit my job and write/research this topic full-time, it would difficult to do so when the bank repossesses one's residence!
On Creation Ex-Nihilo
I want to add this last comment for this post today (because it is already getting too long and I am running out of time again). I was not able to address it yesterday, but this is an interesting point that I remain undecided on. There are three significant points I want to highlight:
- 1. The Hebrew verb ברא (bara) does not intrinsically mean 'creation ex-nihilo', contrary to most theological exegesis of the word. Bara comes from a Hebrew root which essentially means "to fatten, form or shape by filling up [with food or otherwise]". It is used of "fattened people", shaped and formed (fattened) because of their selfish consumption of ritual animal sacrifice, eg. 1 Samuel 2:29. Thus Genesis 1 instructs us regarding the 'fattening', that is, forming and filling up, of the heavens and the earth from its state of 'formlessness and emptiness' (tohu wabohu) to its finished status (Gen 2:1). It does not, in and of itself, imply creation ex-nihilo. 
2. The Hebrew verb עשה (asah) overlaps semantically with bara, but comes from a Hebrew root which means to mould, form or shape something with the hands. In a sense it is a more active verb of creation, with direct participation of the subject in the very act of creating. Asah is typically used to describe the directional shaping of existing material, as in Genesis 1:7 and 16: God made the expanse... God made the two great lights. Again, asah in and of itself leans towards a usage implying pre-existence of matter that can be formed, molded and shaped according to the will of the shaper. 
3. Gen 1:1-2 imply the pre-existence of 'earth', even if its state was tohu wabohu. The only way to get around this is to incorporate later Hebrew (and Christian) theological conceptions of the creation event, eg. Psalm 33:6, 9; John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:1-2; 11:3, etc, that more explicitly imply creation ex-nihilo.
Unfortunately, that's all I have time for today. I will get to Charles' points tomorrow!
 Jeff Benner, https://ancient-hebrew.org/studies-vers ... lation.htm