Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:38 pm

Lloyd wrote: If anyone feels that the Bible or Torah is superior to other ancient myths, feel free to hold such a view, but don't expect the rest of us to agree or even listen. Okay?
I would expect no less amongst such a diverse group that we have here! :)

Suppositions of Biblical authority aside, where I think the Bible shines is its discernable chronology, even if the details are rather incomplete. I have barely scratched the surface when it comes to wading through the mythohistorical record. I cannot imagine it is particularly easy to place events upon a specified, let alone agreed-upon, chronological timeline (contra Jno Cook). I think the Bible offers a good chronological starting point, although I also completely understand that some scholars, like Talbott and Cardona and many of the denizens of this forum, view the 'creation' events of Genesis 1-3 as mere Hebrew mythological interpretations of the planetary-plasma phenomena their ancestors eyewitnessed in a post-Flood millieu of other world cultures and mythologies and that they are not some distinct, unrelated fiat creation event.

Nevertheless, that is what this thread is for!

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:02 pm

My friend, Charles Chandler, has done a lot of research on the Torah, which he calls "Torah Historicity" at
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5675 . Here's part of his Introduction.

"The Torah just doesn't fit that pattern [of other legends - LK]. Clearly, the Jewish scribes were not given such poetic license, and were rather expected to leave the stories as close to the originals as possible. Without the entertainment value, the massive effort was motivated entirely by the conviction that they were preserving real testimony, which of course isn't always poetic, and which sometimes contradicts itself, but which nevertheless has to be transcribed as given. If we are to think like detectives, we shouldn't conclude that conflicting reports constitute reason to believe that the whole thing was made up — rather, a good detective suspects fabrication when all of the reports are too consistent. So the historicity of the Torah remains an open question, inconsistencies and all. If we are to discern what actually happened (if anything), we have to study the reports carefully, and we have to compare them to independently obtained information, especially the archaeological evidence."

I think he did a very good job of possibly uncovering the real history of the Israelites and Hebrews (2 different peoples). He finds a lot of good evidence in secular archeology which supports the "actual" history that he found, which is considerably different from others' conclusions. E.g., Abraham and Sarah were half siblings and were both royalty. I believe his reasoning is superior to most others. Any comments? Here's his Chronology, which can give an idea of where he differs with others:
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6883

User avatar
Brigit Bara
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by Brigit Bara » Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:34 pm

Hi Lloyd, good to see you, and you have gotten every one talking on another interesting forum!

I am sure as you pointed out we can all be safely assumed to have completely different views. But it might turn out to be a useful discussion any way.

At least my approach is clear, in comparing scripture with scripture, and it is my sincerely held view for these reasons that there was a cataclysm between the opening words of Genesis.

So since JP Michael has kindly taken the time to line up some interesting arguments about Gen. 1:1 &1:2, I don't mind if I do. (:
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:06 pm

Lloyd wrote:Any comments? Here's his Chronology, which can give an idea of where he differs with others:
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6883
Certainly unorthodox, that is for sure! I've never encountered anything as radical as that before.

My primary point of contention is that Chandler's chronological scheme reduces Christ's genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 to a hodge-podge piecemeal joke of Dr. Luke's messianic fantasy. I would have to spend some time reading through the details, but that would be my first and primary criticism. The New Testament resolutely affirms a mostly straightforward reading of the chronogenealogical records from Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Exodus, Exodus to David, David to Exile, and then Exile to Messiah, debatable textual variants in 3:33 & 36 of Luke's account notwithstanding.

User avatar
Brigit Bara
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by Brigit Bara » Sat Nov 30, 2019 8:40 pm

JP Michael says, in part, "My point was that old-earth interpretations of Genesis 1:1-2, in addition to ruin-reconstructionism, are themselves new interpretations that do not originate from the text itself, nor via a rigorous exegetical process of comparing scripture with scripture. They originate with considerations external to and imposed upon the text...In the history of Christian exegesis of this passage, ruin-reconstructionism has never been required (hence its 1,800 year absence) until the advent of old-earth geology."

"If it's new, it probably isn't true!" (: I think that actually is what they teach at seminaries as well as monasteries.

I understand your objection to the timing of the gap theory. But after all, it does seem reasonable to take on board the idea that sediments were laid down over very long periods of time, and through pressure and heat, and even longer swaths of time, were lithified. I am not addressing these problems. We agree that there were "considerations external to the text," but the meaning of the second verse of Genesis is illuminated further by many other verses in Genesis, and the rest of the Bible, revealing an event which lead to utter chaos and ruin of the primitive creation.

I will list them next. I will also freely disclose that I think that many of the fossils and coal seams were laid down in the Gen 1:2 event.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:56 pm

Brigit Bara wrote:it does seem reasonable to take on board the idea that sediments were laid down over very long periods of time, and through pressure and heat, and even longer swaths of time, were lithified.
I must be frank when I suggest I find this proposition neither reasonable nor defensible in the light of modern research in stratigraphy and sedimentary deposition, especially those of Guy Berthault's flume tank experiments in stratigraphy and Andrew Hall's waterless electrical-catastrophic ionic winds hypothesis. Unlike Berthault, I think both water and supersonic ionic winds are responsible for various phases and aspects of earth geology during past catastrophic encounters with planets and must be taken into account (credits to Moses for stating that earlier).

Long periods of time are simply not required and unneccessary for sedimentary desposition by catastrophic water or ionic wind events respectively, let alone their subsequent solidification. Fossilisation and solidification takes years, decades at most, not millenia or millions of years, and depends entirely on local conditions. These are some of the fundamental flaws of uniformitarian assumptions in modern geology and one about which I will be most vociferous, simply because outdated and unscientific uniformitarian notions are so very, very wrong and few people have the guts to say so in public with supporting evidence.

I continue to remain perplexed by the perpetuity of that falsified doctrine in some catastrophist geology, just as equally as I am perplexed by the perpetuity of its equally falsified uniformitarian cousin in biology, evolution. I would really like to understand why that is because I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why Lyell's 19th century intellectual fossils persist.

User avatar
Brigit Bara
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by Brigit Bara » Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:26 pm

I must be frank when I suggest I find this proposition neither reasonable nor defensible in the light of modern research in stratigraphy and sedimentary deposition, especially those of...

Ya. I was just remarking on the historic period. It was an interesting time when England was transitioning from muscle power and whale oil to steam and paraffin, so there was a lot of coal and shale mining. William Smith created his famous map of England and Wales, including for the first time the strata and the fossils they contained. There were some amazing fossil assemblages being discovered all over the world and much quicker communication. I think there was a lot of different speculation about geology at the time, but really no way to scientifically or empirically test any thing. Probably the best outcome would have been a lot of competing theories, including some catastrophists, but Darwin and Lyell simply became the dominant view.

Thanks for the link to the fossilized wire. Too many subjects, I just love them all.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun Dec 01, 2019 4:55 pm

CHANDLER. JP, you said, "Chandler's chronological scheme reduces Christ's genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 to a hodge-podge piecemeal joke ...."
I'm not aware that Charles removed anyone from the genealogy. I think he merely shortened the lifespans of the earliest listed ancestors. Also, as an aside, James Trimm or someone showed that the Greek New Testament left out one of Jesus' ancestors, apparently due to scribal error when translating from Hebrew to Greek, because two in a row had similar names. (Trimm says the New Testament was written in Hebrew before Greek.)

AGE OF THE EARTH. I guess you maintain that the Earth and universe were created 6 or 7 thousand years ago in the way described in Genesis 1. But how do you know "God" referred to the Creator and not to angels of God or something, as is apparent in the chapter on Abraham at Sodom & Gemorah? And how do you know "Earth" referred to our planet? And how do you know "created" meant made from nothing? I consider it possible that the Earth formed 6 or 7 thousand years ago, but probably earlier and probably not from nothing. But I'm open-minded. And I agree with what you said about Berthault's findings.

Younger Dryas
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by Younger Dryas » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:23 pm

Lloyd addresses some excellent questions.

'The World' did not necessarily mean our planet
'The Earth' did not nessecarily mean our planet.

Oceans, Seas, Rivers, Vegetation, Temples etc etc may all as well be interpreted differently losing the above assumptions, helping to ascertain the sentiments expressed and correlated by a collection of fine folks in the 7th century b.c.
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:36 pm

CATASTROPHIST MODELS. On my private forum at http://futureschool.boards.net/thread/2 ... crollTo=30 I'm trying to compare several catastrophist models and evaluate them to decide which ones are best. I added my name at the end, although I haven't completely compiled my model yet. Would any of you like to have anyone else's model, or your own, added to the list for comparison, analysis and evaluation? Here are the models I have listed so far:
Velikovsky, Driscoll, Ackerman, Gilligan, Heinsohn, Cook, Cardona, Oard, Baumgardner, Brown, Fischer, Kinder

I'm trying to determine how each model answers the following questions:
A. What is the main claim of each theory?
B. How and when did the Earth form?
C. How and when did the largely granitic/sedimentary continents and the largely basaltic ocean basins form?
D. How and when did sedimentary rock strata form?
E. How and when did mountains form?
F. What Earth cataclysms occurred and when?
G. Which space objects caused which of the cataclysms and how?

If anyone has better answers to any of those questions than what I have listed at the above link, please let me know. Some of the models don't address some of the questions. But some may have answers that I'm not yet aware of. Velikovsky didn't address B, C, D, or E, did he? 3 creationists' models are listed. Do any of them give more specific dates than I showed for them? Thanks for any help.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:12 pm

Lloyd wrote:I'm not aware that Charles removed anyone from the genealogy. I think he merely shortened the lifespans of the earliest listed ancestors.
What I meant is that Chandler's reconstruction conflicts with that of Luke's recorded genealogy. Chandler makes the "Hebrew" genealogy and the "Israelite" genealogy as seperate yet contemporaneous lineages. For example, Abraham and Sarah were expelled from Egypt in -1380 BCE, and Joshua was destroying Jericho in -1365 BCE according to Chandlers' reconstruction. This makes Abraham a contemporary of Moses & Joshua and the Exodus from Egypt. Luke's genealogy is a straightfoward, sequential "son of, son of, son of, son of" from Christ all the way back to Adam. In Luke's genealogy, Moses and Joshua lived at the same time as Nahshon son of Amminadab (Luke 3:32-33, cf. Numbers 1:7) which is some 7 generations removed from Abraham.

If Chandler's contemporaneous genealogical reconstruction is correct, then Luke's is manifestly incorrect. That is what I meant by "hodgepodge piecemeal joke". If Luke's is correct, Chandler's is incorrect. They cannot both be right. Given that Luke was a contemporary of the Apostles and clearly demonstrates access to 2nd Temple genealogical archives, I am not going to side with Chandler on that issue.
Lloyd wrote:Also, as an aside, James Trimm or someone showed that the Greek New Testament left out one of Jesus' ancestors, apparently due to scribal error when translating from Hebrew to Greek, because two in a row had similar names. (Trimm says the New Testament was written in Hebrew before Greek.)
There are four deliberate ommissions from Matthew's genealogy (Matthew only traces Abraham to Christ; the deliberate ommissions exist between Jeconiah and Shealtiel, with an unknown number of ommissions between Abiud and Joseph) and two additions to Luke's when compared to genealogical records in Genesis 5, 10, 11 and 1 Chronicles 1-2. Much has been said of both of these matters in Biblical/theological scholarship and textual criticism that I need not repeat here.
Lloyd wrote:But how do you know "God" referred to the Creator and not to angels of God or something, as is apparent in the chapter on Abraham at Sodom & Gemorah?


Because the Bible repeats emphatically, over and over and over and over again, that the God (Elohim) of Genesis 1:1 is the same as the convenantal personage that is personally identified as the Tetragrammaton, YHWH (see Exodus 3:14) and Jesus of the New Testament, eg. Genesis 1:1; 2:4; 5:1-2; 6:7; Exodus 34:10; Deuteronomy 4:31-32; Psalm 89:8-12; Psalms 104 & 148 (whole Psalms); Isaiah 40:28; 42:5; 45:12, 18; Malachi 2:10; Mark 13:19; John 1:1-3, 14; 8:52-58; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:1-3; 11:3; Revelation 4:10; 11:6 etc etc.

Genesis 18 and Abraham's meeting with YHWH and two angels has nothing at all to do with the creation account other than to narrate an encounter between the already identified Creator, YHWH, and Abraham in human form with an entourage of two angels who also appear in human likeness. Did God put covenants in place through angelic mediators? Absolutely, Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19 and Hebrews 2:2 make it clear that angels were involved in the giving of the Law on Sinai. But this has nothing to do with creation, and Hebrews chapters 1-2 make it clear that God administered the Mosaic covenant via angels so as to ensure that the better and final covenant with humanity would be administered by the Son of God who is, by his very nature, superior to any angelic administration or covenant.
Lloyd wrote:And how do you know "Earth" referred to our planet? And how do you know "created" meant made from nothing? I consider it possible that the Earth formed 6 or 7 thousand years ago, but probably earlier and probably not from nothing. But I'm open-minded.
The overall thrust of the Genesis narrative makes it clear that it is the Earth being referred to in those chapters, not a 'heavenly earth', ie. Saturn, as postulated by Talbott, Cardona and others. The same Hebrew word is used throughout (aretz), from which:
  • 1. Dry land (continent[s]) and oceans appear (Gen 1:9-10)
    2. Vegetation sprouts (1:11; 2:9)
    3. Above which the birds fly (1:20; 2:19)
    4. From which the animals were made (1:24-25; 2:19)
    5. Upon which the mist waters (2:5-6)
    6. From Adam is delicately fashioned (2:7)
    7. Upon which God plants a garden of trees (2:8)
    8. Has precious metals and stones (2:12)
    9. Is cursed when Adam sins (3:17-19).
    10. Cries out with Abel's blood (4:10-11)
    11. Is relieved of the curse by Noah (5:29)
    12. Is defiled by the wickedness of the Nephilim (6:1-7, 11-12)
    13. Is destroyed utterly by floodwaters (6:13; 7:6-23)
    and so on...

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:57 am

Two Points.
Thanks for comments, JP. 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.

Point 1: ARETZ/ERETZ
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.

At http://www.catastrophism.com/intro/sear ... t%5B%5D=-1
I find 7 catastrophist sources that discuss "eretz". Here's a quotation from the first one, which I happen to have on file. I look forward to your comments and anyone else's.

Darkness and the Deep, [by] Dwardu Cardona [Aeon Journal]
From: Aeon III:3 (Oct 1993)
...
1. Introduction ...
2. The Solitary God ...
3. Being and Not Being ...
4. Tohu Wa Bohu
The father of all creation myths, at least in the Western World, is that contained in the very first chapter of the Book of Genesis. It is there stated that: In [the] beginning Elohim created the shemayim and 'eretz. And 'eretz was tohu wa bohu, and darkness was on the surface of the tehom. And the ruach of Elohim moved upon the face of the mayim. (37) Elohim (El and/or Eloah), as I have elsewhere indicated, was one of the ancient names of Saturn. (38) "Shemayim" are "the heavens" -- in the plural. "Eretz" is the word usually translated as "earth," but it more properly means "land." The words "tohu wa bohu" are traditionally translated as "without form and void" or "void and empty." The "tehom" is understood as a watery abyss -- the deep. Ruach means "spirit" or "soul," but also "wind," while the mayim are merely "the waters," also in the plural. What the words of Genesis are therefore telling us is that, "in the beginning" -- that is, as far back as man can remember -- Saturn fashioned the "land," which was formless and empty, while the "spirit" of the same Saturn moved over the darkened waters. "Tohu wa bohu," however, can also mean "utter chaos." (39) This is interesting because, in describing the creation as remembered by the Greeks, Hesiod asks: "From the beginning, which first came to be?" And answers: "Chaos was first of all..." (40) It is from this chaos that, according to the mythologies of many races, creation was said to have proceeded. Thus, in the Phoenician cosmogony of Philo Byblius, we find "dark chaos" presiding as the ruling principle before creation. (41) This is similar to what the Roman Ovid had to say concerning the creation as believed in by his countrymen. "All nature was Chaos...Earth, Air, Water heaved and turned in darkness..." (42) Likewise, the Chinese philosopher Lao-tze (Lao-tse or Lao-tzu) had it stated that: There is something chaotic yet complete which existed before heaven and earth. Oh how still it is and formless, standing alone without changing, reaching everywhere without suffering harm. Its name I know not. To designate it I call it Tao. (43) Or, in a different translation: Before Heaven and Earth existed -- There was something nebulous -- Silent, isolated -- Standing alone, changing not, -- Eternally revolving without fail -- Worthy to be the Mother of All Things. -- I do not know its name -- And address it as Tao. (44)
...
5. The Waters of Chaos ...
6. The Darkness Over the Deep ...
7. Saturn's Glow ...
8. Earth's Primeval Heat ...
9. The Logos ...
10. The Celestial Earth ...
In Conclusion
It is accepted that this study has raised problems that have yet to be resolved. The real nature of the primeval darkness and the manner in which the Sun was shielded from mortal eyes has yet to be analyzed. The survival, and quality of life, in gloom must also be investigated. So, also, must the cause of Saturn's flare-up. Having lived in darkness for untold ages, the shedding of the light would have affected humankind in ways unknown to us. Familiar objects, including animals and humans, would no longer have looked the same and, in truth, the mytho-historical record has a few things to say concerning this effect. The very nature of the air seems also to have been affected and distance itself, so important to those early hunters and food gatherers, seems to have undergone an apparent, even if perhaps illusory, change. Much more can be said about this complex subject. A line, however, must be drawn somewhere and, for the time being at least, this is where I have chosen to draw it. Future studies will hopefully shed as much light on our understanding of these primeval events as the planet Saturn once did.* This paper, first drafted in 1978-79, owes much to Roger Ashton and David Lorton, both of whom had a hand in ironing out some of its original creases. Mainly, however, I wish to dedicate this final version to the late David Griffard who, more than anybody else, helped in elucidating its original ambiguities. Even so, I alone take full responsibility for the often bizarre ideas herein reflected while I burden no one with the physical difficulties these ideas raise.
-- References ...


Point 2: OUR CATASTROPHIST VIEWS
I think it would be good to clarify our catastrophist views in a little detail. This applies to Brigit, Mo and anyone else who wants to discuss here.
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. You indicate familiarity with the Saturn theory, but you don't seem to accept that Earth, Venus and Mars were in polar axial alignment with Saturn's poles. I.e., you seem to accept that they orbited Saturn the way they now orbit the Sun. I favor the Saturnist view of axial alignment, which was possible while the Saturn system was moving from outside to inside the solar system. The SL9 comet that broke up and the pieces then followed each other in single file in a straight line until they hit Jupiter is evidence that the planets could have been axially aligned. I don't have strong views on this, but that seems most likely so far.

User avatar
CharlesChandler
Posts: 1802
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA
Contact:

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by CharlesChandler » Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:24 pm

Hi JP,

Thanks for the comments. There might be too much distance between our positions for easy exchange, but it never hurts to expose one's reasoning to the light of day. ;)
JP Michael wrote:Given that Luke was a contemporary of the Apostles and clearly demonstrates access to 2nd Temple genealogical archives, I am not going to side with Chandler on that issue.
Yes, Luke got the genealogy from the 2nd Temple scribes. They got it from King Josiah (640-609 BCE), who canonized everything from Genesis to 2 Kings. And he got the genealogy from the 1st Temple scribes. But did he copy it verbatim? Or did the Deuteronomic Reform actually change some things around? IMO, the blatant contradictions between the verses require that we accept either that the forces at work were supernatural, or that fallible human beings got involved. I go with the latter strategy, and in order to get back to what actually happened, something has to slide. Then it's just a matter of evaluating the various possible interpretations. What I find intriguing about seeing Akhenaten, Moses, & Isaac as contemporaries is that huge numbers of historical verses appear to fall neatly into place. Other strategies cherry-pick just one or a couple details, but then they have to dismiss the remainder of the Torah as myth. I just don't see who would invent such myths. ;) So by independent lines of reasoning, I incorporate the abundant scholarship that has Abraham & Sarah being expelled from Egypt, and Isaac born, sometime around 1380 BCE, and I also subscribe to the date given in the Book of Jubilees for Moses' birth in ~1382 BCE. This makes Akhenaten, Moses, & Isaac all roughly the same age. That solves a lot of problems. But then I have to explain why the Deuteronomists would have changed things around, making contemporaries sound like successors. The quick answer is that it was just simpler if everyone came along in a linear progression, as you noted. But that isn't necessarily what happened. ;)

Cheers!
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms

kmcook
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:20 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by kmcook » Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:09 pm

Charles Chandler wrote:
This makes Akhenaten, Moses, & Isaac all roughly the same age.
In some 'secret' traditions (Masonic & Rosicrucian) Akhenaten=Moses, not as contemporaries but the same physical person.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:19 pm

Re: Creationism, Myths & Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:02 pm

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? :lol:
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. [1]

    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. [1]

    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!

[1] Jeff Benner, https://ancient-hebrew.org/studies-vers ... lation.htm

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests