Exactly How Old Are Homo Sapiens?

[moses]

Exactly how old are humans.
More importantly, Antarctica was located in a temperate latitude in the time of Kronos so you have serious and irreconcilable chronology issues with such a belief.
Total Science
In the Saturn System the predominant producer of heat was electric current and not radiation. This would mean that the surface temperature on Earth was pretty much the same anywhere on Earth. So one does not have to locate Antarctica away from the pole for there to be no ice there. On the other hand if Saturn produced a lot of radiation then the Arctic would have been warm and Antarctica could have been cold.

"She [Venus] founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours [Sais], of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, 6th century B.C.
Considering Hephaestus was planetary, this could refer to a beginnings or creation type story. I don't like the Greek information. How much belief was involved in their stories. They could have got a lot of things wrong. Of course I'm no expert. So many people have studied the Greek stuff and come to conclusions. This makes it very difficult.
Mo

[Total Science]

In the Saturn System the predominant producer of heat was electric current and not radiation.

Electric current and radiation are one and the same. All radiation is electromagnetic in origin.

This would mean that the surface temperature on Earth was pretty much the same anywhere on Earth.

Did you forget about the Sun?

Considering Hephaestus was planetary, this could refer to a beginnings or creation type story.

Beyond all possible doubt.

"Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth...." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, 6th century B.C.

"Le myth est ne de la science." -- Charles F. Dupuis, polymath, 1795

"... what is myth to-day is often history to-morrow." -- Lewis Spence, translator, July 1908

"Physical scientists were outraged in 1950 when Immanuel Velikovsky published historical evidence from around the world suggesting that the order and even the number of planets in the solar system had changed within the memory of man. Ideas in nearly every field of scholarship were challenged, but most seriously challenged of all were certain dogmas in the field of astronomy which had only in recent centuries succeeded in convincing mankind that Spaceship Earth was a haven of safety. The emotional outburst from the community of astronomers that so blackened the name Velikovsky and so successfully - if only temporarily - discredited Worlds in Collision has been laid to many causes, from the psychological and the political to simple resentment against invasion of the field by an outsider. Whatever the nature of such intensifying factors, however, I believe it is only fair to acknowledge an underlying and totally sincere scientific disbelief in the historical record." -- Ralph E. Juergens, engineer, 1972

"... science is no different from other mythologies, including Native American myths, all of which are equally valid ...." -- Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, historians, 2002

"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by [Anthony] Peratt's petroglyphs. They chose, for some strange reason, to disguise their knowledge by creating myths and legends in archaic petroglyphs and mythological symbols." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007

I don't like the Greek information. How much belief was involved in their stories. They could have got a lot of things wrong. Of course I'm no expert. So many people have studied the Greek stuff and come to conclusions. This makes it very difficult.
Mo

Of course you think that. It's easy to believe what we've been spoon fed and brainwashed with since the time we could crawl.

Perhaps Solon and Plato weren't retarded dunces and liars after all. Perhaps history is real.

"Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth...." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, 6th century B.C.

"Le myth est ne de la science." -- Charles F. Dupuis, polymath, 1795

"... what is myth to-day is often history to-morrow." -- Lewis Spence, translator, July 1908

[moses]

Electric current and radiation are one and the same. All radiation is electromagnetic in origin.
Total Science
At the moment from the Sun we get radiation which is electromagnetic in origin. We also get ions from the Sun which is electric current. In the Saturn System the heating from the ions was possibly more significant than the radiation from Saturn. If the Saturn System was about where Saturn is now then the Sun would produce a day and night but not much heating.

"Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth...." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, 6th century B.C.
That's an excellent quote.
Mo

[Grey Cloud]

"Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth...." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, 6th century B.C.

That's an excellent quote.
Mo

It's by Plato (Timaeus) not an Egyptian priest. Total Science likes to quote from things he has not read or does not understand. As evidenced by:

"She [Venus] founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours [Sais], of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, 6th century B.C.

Again this is from Plato's Timaeus and the actual quote, from the Jowett translation, is:

You are welcome to hear about them, Solon, said the priest, both for your own sake and for that of your city, and above all, for the sake of the goddess who is the common patron and parent and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race, and afterwards she founded ours, of which the constitution is recorded in our sacred registers to be eight thousand years old.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Plato/Tim ... maeus1.htm

No mention or reference to Venus whatsoever.

I would be interested in what evidence either of you have for Hephaistos being 'planetary'.

[Total Science]

Again this is from Plato's Timaeus

No. The name of Sonchis of Sais comes from Plutarch.

Are you calling Plato and Solon liars?

No mention or reference to Venus whatsoever.

Neith aka Nit or Ishtar is the planet Venus...

"Athena and Aphrodite were both planet Venus deities." -- Charles Ginenthal, historian, 1995

I would be interested in what evidence either of you have for Hephaistos being 'planetary'.

The Phoenicians, Greeks, and Romans worshipped the planets as gods.

"For he [Manasseh] built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made an Asherah, as did Ahab king of Israel, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them. -- II Kings 21:3

"Since the stars come into existence in the aether, it is reasonable that they possess sensation and intelligence. And from this it follows that the stars are to be reckoned as gods. For it may be observed that the inhabitants of those countries in which the air is pure and rarefied have keener wits and greater powers of understanding than persons who live an a dense and heavy climate.... It is therefore likely that the stars possess surpassing intelligence, since they inhabit the ethereal region of the world. Again, the consciousness and intelligence of the stars is most clearly evinced by their order and regularity ... the stars move of their own free will and because of their intelligence and divinity.... Not yet can it be said that some stronger force compels the heavenly bodies to travel in a manner contrary to their nature, for what stronger force can there be? It remains therefore that the motion of the heavenly bodies is voluntary...Therefore the existence of the gods is so manifest that I can scarcely deem one who denies it to be of sound mind." -- Marcus T. Cicero, philosopher, 1st century B.C.

"Another of his [Pythagoras's] theories was ... that the sun, and the moon, and the stars, were all Gods...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

"But possibly these stars which have been called by their names are these gods. They call a certain star Mercury, and likewise a certain other star Mars. But among those stars which are called by the name of gods, is that one which they call Jupiter, and yet with them Jupiter is the world. There also is that one they call Saturn, and yet they give him no small property beside, namely all seeds." -- Augustine, theologian, City of God, 426

"The sun, moon and stars, were such noble and glorious bodies, and so visible, so remarkable, so useful [to all] parts of the world; and the heathen nations so generally doted on the worship of them...." -- William Whiston, mathematician, 1737

"It is not easy to understand the idea which was the basis for the identification of the Babylonian gods with the planets." -- Peter Jensen, author, 1890

"Are you so impressed also by the planet Jupiter that you would regard it as a chief deity above Sun and Moon? And they worshipped those planets, those gods, in the planets themselves. They were lifting their hands, the Babylonians and the Indians, Hindu, and the Chinese, all, they were lifting their hands to those planets in worshipping them. And human sacrifice were brought to them. Even into recent times, among the American Indians, in the last century still, human sacrifice were brought to the planet Venus." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966

[GaryN]

Good to see you back GC. Just pulling up my chair, got to get me a good ring-side seat for this one!
I just wonder who started the planet worship. These little dots of light in the sky sure don't look like mighty Gods to me, but maybe if the planets were electrically lit up they would have been more impressive?
"Seconds away..."

[moses]

I would be interested in what evidence either of you have for Hephaistos being 'planetary'.
Grey Cloud
http://messagenetcommresearch.com/myths ... istos.html
"Hephaistos fashioned his own mechanical helpers to assist him in his work. They are golden and in the form of living young women; strong, vocal and intelligent (Iliad, book 18, line 417). He built tri-pods that move of their own accord to and from the feasts on Mount Olympos (Olympus) (Iliad, book 18, line 372). He built the homes of all the Olympians and fitted them with clever locks that the other immortals cannot undo. With the help of his Kyklopes (Cyclops), he hammers out lightning bolts for Zeus and all manner of subtle and gentle devices for a select few mortals."
That will do me.
Mo

[Grey Cloud]

Grey Cloud wrote:Again this is from Plato's Timaeus

No. The name of Sonchis of Sais comes from Plutarch.

No. The quotes both come from Plato’s Timaeus. They are spoken by the character Critias as part of the preamble to the Atlantis story. The priest is not named by Plato. The fact that Plutarch gave the Greek name Sonchis is irrelevant.

Are you calling Plato and Solon liars?

No. I am saying that you are in error attributing the quotes to an Egyptian priest of the 6th century BCE.

Neith aka Nit or Ishtar is the planet Venus...

Only in the minds of Velikovsky and his disciples. Mixing and matching gods from various cultures is not as simple you appear to think. All mythologies are based upon the same underlying philosophy but they deal with it in different ways. As an analogy, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter relate the same underlying story but one cannot swap, e.g. Samwise Gangee and Hermione/Ron, even though the characters fill more or less the same role in both.

"Athena and Aphrodite were both planet Venus deities." -- Charles Ginenthal, historian, 1995

Ginenthal is/was the publisher of the Velikovskian. No ancient Greek, as far as I am aware, ever conflated Athene and Aphrodite. Try reading the Iliad or Plato.

I would be interested in what evidence either of you have for Hephaistos being 'planetary'.

The Phoenicians, Greeks, and Romans worshipped the planets as gods.

So? I am not interested in what the multitude believed, only in what the wise knew. No ancient writer, as far as I am aware, maintained that god = planet full stop. That certain stars and planets were associated with certain of the gods, certainly. Which planet/star do you identify with Hephaistos? Before you regurgitate the party-line and say Mars, I would suggest you read up on the adulteress affair of Ares and Aphrodite.

"For he [Manasseh] built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made an Asherah, as did Ahab king of Israel, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them. -- II Kings 21:3

I fail to see the relevance of this quote. There is nothing in this verse which equates gods with planets.

"Since the stars come into existence in the aether, it is reasonable that they possess sensation and intelligence. And from this it follows that the stars are to be reckoned as gods. For it may be observed that the inhabitants of those countries in which the air is pure and rarefied have keener wits and greater powers of understanding than persons who live an a dense and heavy climate.... It is therefore likely that the stars possess surpassing intelligence, since they inhabit the ethereal region of the world. Again, the consciousness and intelligence of the stars is most clearly evinced by their order and regularity ... the stars move of their own free will and because of their intelligence and divinity.... Not yet can it be said that some stronger force compels the heavenly bodies to travel in a manner contrary to their nature, for what stronger force can there be? It remains therefore that the motion of the heavenly bodies is voluntary...Therefore the existence of the gods is so manifest that I can scarcely deem one who denies it to be of sound mind." -- Marcus T. Cicero, philosopher, 1st century B.C.

http://www.varchive.org/ce/orbit/cicero.htm (It’s customary to give the exact source for a quote).
Ah, Cicero. A fascinating book and one that is highly recommended. On a personal note, any time I see ellipses in a quotation given by an ‘alternative researcher’, alarm bells go off in my head. Reading Cardona’s God Star near deafened me.
First, a little context for the passage. The book consists of a dialogue between a priest and three philosophers, each of a different school. The priest is playing Devil’s Advocate and has asked each of the philosophers to prove to him that the gods exist. The passage quoted comes from the priest’s response to the Epicurean‘s reasoning. The priest is actually giving Aristotle’s reasoning, so it is not Cicero’s. Here is an alternative translation of the full passage, which was, in fact, cobbled together from three different sections of the text. The beginning of chapter XV is given to put things in context.

XV. The divinity of the world being now clearly perceived, we must acknowledge the same divinity to be likewise in the stars, which are formed from the lightest and purest part of the ether, without a mixture of any other matter; and, being altogether hot and transparent, we may justly say they have life, sense, and understanding. And Cleanthes thinks that it may be established by the evidence of two of our senses — feeling and seeing — that they are entirely fiery bodies; for the heat and brightness of the sun far exceed any other fire, inasmuch as it enlightens the whole universe, covering such a vast extent of space, and its power is such that we perceive that it not only warms, but often even burns: neither of which it could do if it were not of a fiery quality. Since, then, says he, the sun is a fiery body, and is nourished by the vapors of the ocean (for no fire can continue without some sustenance), it must be either like that fire which we use to warm us and dress our food, or like that which is contained in the bodies of animals.

Clearly, Cicero did not hold to the notion that planet = god, full stop.
XV, third paragraph:

As, then, some animals are generated in the earth, some in the water, and some in the air, Aristotle thinks it ridiculous to imagine that no animal is formed in that part of the universe which is the most capable to produce them. But the stars are situated in the ethereal space; and as this is an element the most subtle, whose motion is continual, and whose force does not decay, it follows, of necessity, that every animated being which is produced in it must be endowed with the quickest sense and the swiftest motion. The stars, therefore, being there generated, it is a natural inference to suppose them endued with such a degree of sense and understanding as places them in the rank of Gods.

This last sentence implies that all planets are god’s but not that all god’s are planets.

XVI. For it may be observed that they who inhabit countries of a pure, clear air have a quicker apprehension and a readier genius than those who live in a thick, foggy climate. It is thought likewise that the nature of a man’s diet has an effect on the mind; therefore it is probable that the stars are possessed of an excellent understanding, inasmuch as they are situated in the ethereal part of the universe, and are nourished by the vapors of the earth and sea, which are purified by their long passage to the heavens. But the invariable order and regular motion of the stars plainly manifest their sense and understanding; for all motion which seems to be conducted with reason and harmony supposes an intelligent principle, that does not act blindly, or inconsistently, or at random. And this regularity and consistent course of the stars from all eternity indicates not any natural order, for it is pregnant with sound reason, not fortune (for fortune, being a friend to change, despises consistency). It follows, therefore, that they move spontaneously by their own sense and divinity.
Aristotle also deserves high commendation for his observation that everything that moves is either put in motion by natural impulse, or by some external force, or of its own accord; and that the sun, and moon, and all the stars move; but that those things which are moved by natural impulse are either borne downward by their weight, or upward by their lightness; neither of which things could be the case with the stars, because they move in a regular circle and orbit. Nor can it be said that there is some superior force which causes the stars to be moved in a manner contrary to nature. For what superior force can there be? It follows, therefore, that their motion must be voluntary. And whoever is convinced of this must discover not only great ignorance, but great impiety likewise, if he denies the existence of the Gods; nor is the difference great whether a man denies their existence, or deprives them of all design and action; for whatever is wholly inactive seems to me not to exist at all. Their existence, therefore, appears so plain that I can scarcely think that man in his senses who denies it.
http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Cicero2.html

So Total Science, you believe that planets = gods and you believe that planets exist. Do you believe in gods or are you out of your senses?

"Another of his [Pythagoras's] theories was ... that the sun, and the moon, and the stars, were all Gods...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

Another fascinating book but not one, I feel, that is on a par with Cicero. One should bear in mind that Diogenes was writing 9 centuries after Pythagoras and it is explicit in the text that he has not read anything original of Pythagoras. The full paragraph:
Another of his theories was, that the air around the earth was immoveable, and pregnant with disease; and that everything in it was mortal; but that the upper air was in perpetual motion, and pure and salubrious; and that everything in that was immortal, and on that account divine. And that the sun, and the moon, and the stars, were all Gods; for in them the warm principle predominates which is the cause of life. And that the moon derives its light from the sun. And that there is a relationship between men and the Gods, because men partake of the divine principle; on which account also, God exercises his providence for our advantage. Also, that fate is the cause of the arrangement of the world both generally and particularly.
http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogene ... agoras.htm

"But possibly these stars which have been called by their names are these gods. They call a certain star Mercury, and likewise a certain other star Mars. But among those stars which are called by the name of gods, is that one which they call Jupiter, and yet with them Jupiter is the world. There also is that one they call Saturn, and yet they give him no small property beside, namely all seeds." -- Augustine, theologian, City of God, 426

Once again you are quoting something you do not understand. Velikovsky prefixes the Augustine quote with this sentence:

Augustine, confused by the problem of the deification of the planets, wrote in the fourth century:

Both Velikovsky and Augustine are confused. The key to the quote is the third sentence where ‘world’ is synonymous with ‘Universe’. Zeus is Universal Mind. The planet Jupiter is called, by Homer, Zeus’ ‘night-station’. The planet associated with Zeus is the Sun, hence the Golden Chain story in the Iliad. The planet Jupiter is associated with Athene. You might also want to try reading the fragments of Heraclitus with regard to Zeus and the Sun. And, while you are at it, contemplate upon the Heraclitus quote used on this website (‘It is the thunderbolt which steers all things’) and the implications for the Saturn theory.

"The sun, moon and stars, were such noble and glorious bodies, and so visible, so remarkable, so useful [to all] parts of the world; and the heathen nations so generally doted on the worship of them...." -- William Whiston, mathematician, 1737

What have the opinions of Newton’s side-kick got to do with anything? Whiston is just displaying his own Christian prejudice and bigotry.

"It is not easy to understand the idea which was the basis for the identification of the Babylonian gods with the planets." -- Peter Jensen, author, 1890

“Yes, it is”. – Grey Cloud, forum poster, 2009.
P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (Strassburg, 1890), p. 134. You have read this have you? Or have you just lifted it from here (footnote 4):
http://www.varchive.org/itb/deif.htm (same page as the Augustine quote).
Even in academic circles the understanding of Babylonian cosmology has moved on in the 120 years since Jensen’s book.

"Are you so impressed also by the planet Jupiter that you would regard it as a chief deity above Sun and Moon? And they worshipped those planets, those gods, in the planets themselves. They were lifting their hands, the Babylonians and the Indians, Hindu, and the Chinese, all, they were lifting their hands to those planets in worshipping them. And human sacrifice were brought to them. Even into recent times, among the American Indians, in the last century still, human sacrifice were brought to the planet Venus." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966

If Velikovsky had had the least understanding of the philosophy underlying mythology and the world’s religions, then he would not have written such rubbish as those first few sentences. As for the sacrificing part, I would suggest that it was a post-catastrophe phenomenon. It is also overly simplistic to judge human sacrifice solely by 20th Western mores.

If god = planet full stop, then how do you explain river gods and mountain gods and gods of the wind? Did the ancients get it wrong?

[Total Science]

The priest is not named by Plato.

Exactly.

The fact that Plutarch gave the Greek name Sonchis is irrelevant.

You said Sonchis of Sais comes from Plato but in fact he is named in Plutarch, not Plato.

Are you calling Plato and Solon liars?

No. I am saying that you are in error attributing the quotes to an Egyptian priest of the 6th century BCE.

This makes no sense. Plato quotes Sonchis directly from Solon's diaries which he himself possessed and you don't. If you disagree with the quote then you are calling Plato and Solon liars.

Neith aka Nit or Ishtar is the planet Venus...

Only in the minds of Velikovsky and his disciples. Mixing and matching gods from various cultures is not as simple you appear to think.

Athena, Neith, Nit, Tanit, Astarte, and Ishtar are the planet Venus regardless of what Velikovsky thought and what you think. Saying that they are not the planet Venus demonstrates ignorance and a lack of education.

No ancient Greek, as far as I am aware, ever conflated Athene and Aphrodite.

Venus was two goddesses since she is the Morning Star and Evening Star. This is basic knowledge.

Try reading the Iliad or Plato.

They both identify Athena with Venus.

That certain stars and planets were associated with certain of the gods, certainly.

Great. I guess we're all happy then.

Which planet/star do you identify with Hephaistos?

Moses already pointed out to you what you customarily ignore: Mercury seems to be the correct planet since the Sun is the forge and Mercury is closest to the Sun.

"For he [Manasseh] built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made an Asherah, as did Ahab king of Israel, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them. -- II Kings 21:3

I fail to see the relevance of this quote. There is nothing in this verse which equates gods with planets.

Do you know what the host of heaven are? Do you know what an Asherah is?

It’s customary to give the exact source for a quote.

I have sourced all of my quotes.

You have sourced none.

So Total Science, you believe that planets = gods and you believe that planets exist.

Correct.

Do you believe in gods or are you out of your senses?

I believe in planets and extraterrestrials. Obviously you don't.

The planet Jupiter is associated with Athene.

That's because she was born from Zeus's forehead. The planet Venus was ejected as a fission product from Jupiter's Red Spot. All of the rocky inner planets were born from giant gaseous protoplanets.

"Nay, truly, I might carry this matter still higher, and if one planet must be made parent another, justly claim the principal place for Jupiter, probably above 200 times as big as our Earth, and the largest and most considerable of all the Sun's chorus...." -- William Whiston, mathematician, 1737

"Venus experienced in quick succession its birth and expulsion under violent conditions; an existence as a comet on an ellipse which approached the sun closely; two encounters with the earth accompanied by discharges of [electric] potentials between these two bodies and with a thermal effect caused by conversion of momentum into heat; a number of contacts with Mars, and probably also with Jupiter. Since all this happened between the third and first millennia before the present era, the core of the planet Venus must still be hot." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1950

"Today expert philologists tell us that Saturn and Jupiter are names of vague deities, subterranean or atmospheric, superimposed on the planets at a 'late' period; they neatly sort out folk origins and 'late' derivations, all unaware that planetary periods, sidereal and synodic, were known and rehearsed in numerous ways by celebrations already traditional in archaic times." -- Giorgio de Santillana, polymath, 1969

"To be sure Velikovsky made some predictions that seemed to be close to what astronomers eventually discovered to be so ... For instance, Velikovsky stated that since Venus was formed from Jupiter's interior which must be very hot, Venus itself would be very hot. He said this in 1950, when astronomers believed that Venus' temperature, while warmer that Earth's might not be very much warmer." -- Isaac Asimov, writer, 1981

"In Worlds In Collision, MacMillan, 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky popularized the idea that Venus is a new planet, a fission product of Jupiter. And from about 1450 to 550 BCE, it participated in a series of close-encounters-of-the-worst-kind with Earth. His thesis was largely (and emphatically) rejected by the astronomical community. That rejection is still generally in effect. This, in spite of the fact, that his predictions about the Earth-Venus problem have been verified." -- Robert S. Fritzius, astronomer, December 2007

"For the past 50 years or so, scientists have been talking about dust condensing at low pressures and gradually becoming pebbles, then boulders, etc. and building planets. While that process goes on to some extent, it would lead to oxidized planets without massive cores. I think in the main the planets rained out of the centers of giant gaseous protoplanets, which would account for their massive cores and, in the case of Earth, for her two component surface." -- J. Marvin Herndon, geophysicist, October 2008

You might also want to try reading the fragments of Heraclitus with regard to Zeus and the Sun. And, while you are at it, contemplate upon the Heraclitus quote used on this website (‘It is the thunderbolt which steers all things’) and the implications for the Saturn theory.

All Heraclitus does is prove the ancients possessed a fully developed plasma cosmology from laboratory experiments millenia before Birkeland and Alfven.

"To trace the origin of the solar system is archaeology, not physics." -- Hannes O.G. Alfvén, physicist, 1954

If god = planet full stop, then how do you explain river gods and mountain gods and gods of the wind? Did the ancients get it wrong?

No. Gods come in two forms: planets and angels.

[Grey Cloud]

Grey Cloud wrote:The priest is not named by Plato.

Exactly.

The fact that Plutarch gave the Greek name Sonchis is irrelevant.

You said Sonchis of Sais comes from Plato but in fact he is named in Plutarch, not Plato.

I said the quoted text came from Plato, that is, the two passages which you attributed to Sonchis the 6th century BCE Egyptian priest were written by Plato and appear in his book Timaeus.

Are you calling Plato and Solon liars?

No. I am saying that you are in error attributing the quotes to an Egyptian priest of the 6th century BCE.

This makes no sense. Plato quotes Sonchis directly from Solon's diaries which he himself possessed and you don't. If you disagree with the quote then you are calling Plato and Solon liars.

Solon’s diaries? This is a new one on me. Any info on Plato’s use of such diaries would be of great interest to me.

Neith aka Nit or Ishtar is the planet Venus...

Only in the minds of Velikovsky and his disciples. Mixing and matching gods from various cultures is not as simple you appear to think.

Athena, Neith, Nit, Tanit, Astarte, and Ishtar are the planet Venus regardless of what Velikovsky thought and what you think. Saying that they are not the planet Venus demonstrates ignorance and a lack of education.

Please provide evidence of ancient writers saying that Athene or Neith is the planet Venus.

No ancient Greek, as far as I am aware, ever conflated Athene and Aphrodite.

Venus was two goddesses since she is the Morning Star and Evening Star. This is basic knowledge.

Please provide evidence that the planet Venus was regarded as two goddesses.

Try reading the Iliad or Plato.

They both identify Athena with Venus.

Please provide evidence from either Homer or Plato whereby Athene and Aphrodite are shown to be the same.

Moses already pointed out to you what you customarily ignore: Mercury seems to be the correct planet since the Sun is the forge and Mercury is closest to the Sun.

My apologies to Mo as I had missed his association of Hephaistos with Mercury. Interesting attempt at the symbolism but if Hephaistos is Mercury, then what planet is Hermes? Did the Greeks manage to get any of their mythology right?

"For he [Manasseh] built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made an Asherah, as did Ahab king of Israel, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them. -- II Kings 21:3

I fail to see the relevance of this quote. There is nothing in this verse which equates gods with planets.

Do you know what the host of heaven are? Do you know what an Asherah is?

I stand corrected. I only knew of the later meaning of the term host of heaven, i.e. Arch-angels, angels, seraphim and cherubim etc.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... &artid=939
As for the Asherah, the verse seems to be referring to an Asherah pole. The passage still does not prove that god = planet full stop.

It’s customary to give the exact source for a quote.

I have sourced all of my quotes. You have sourced none.

So, you consider lifting text from the varchive without mentioning the varchive as sourcing a quote? You consider naming the author but not the book, or chapter or page, as sourcing a quote? Yet you consider my linking to the actual passage in an online edition of the text as not sourcing. Nor do you consider my several references to Homer and Plato as sources. Interesting perspective.

So Total Science, you believe that planets = gods and you believe that planets exist.

Correct.

Do you believe in gods or are you out of your senses?

I believe in planets and extraterrestrials. Obviously you don't.

If there is any logic in your reply then it is beyond me. I was also unaware that I didn’t believe in planets. I’m totally clueless as to how ETs have entered into this.

The planet Jupiter is associated with Athene.

That's because she was born from Zeus's forehead. The planet Venus was ejected as a fission product from Jupiter's Red Spot. All of the rocky inner planets were born from giant gaseous protoplanets.

That is an hypothesis to which you subscribe which is fair enough. The main problem with the hypothesis as I see it is that the planets existed before the coming of the Olympians. All the planets had Titans associated with them.

You might also want to try reading the fragments of Heraclitus with regard to Zeus and the Sun. And, while you are at it, contemplate upon the Heraclitus quote used on this website (‘It is the thunderbolt which steers all things’) and the implications for the Saturn theory.

All Heraclitus does is prove the ancients possessed a fully developed plasma cosmology from laboratory experiments millenia before Birkeland and Alfven

Could you provide examples from the Heraclitean fragments which support this claim?

If god = planet full stop, then how do you explain river gods and mountain gods and gods of the wind? Did the ancients get it wrong?

No. Gods come in two forms: planets and angels.

Again, the logic of this escapes me. Are you saying that, e.g., the Greek river-god Xanthus was in fact a Judeo-Christian angel?

[Total Science]

Solon’s diaries? This is a new one on me. Any info on Plato’s use of such diaries would be of great interest to me.

"Solon, who was intending to use the tale [of Antarctica] for his poem, enquired into the meaning of the names, and found that the early Egyptians in writing them down had translated them into their own language, and he recovered the meaning of the several names and when copying them out again translated them into our language. My great-grandfather, Dropides, had the original writing, which is still in my possession, and was carefully studied by me when I was a child." -- Plato, philosopher, Critias, 360 B.C.

Please provide evidence of ancient writers saying that Athene or Neith is the planet Venus.

Already provided.

See Herodotus.

"This is in the temple of Athena, very near to the sanctuary, on the left of the entrance. The people of Sais buried within the temple precinct all kings who were natives of their district. The tomb of Amasis is farther from the sanctuary than the tomb of Apries and his ancestors; yet it, too, is within the temple court; it is a great colonnade of stone, richly adorned, the pillars made in the form of palm trees. In this colonnade are two portals, and the place where the coffin lies is within their doors. There is also at Sais the burial-place of one whose name I think it impious to mention in speaking of such a matter [Osiris]; it is in the temple of Athena, behind and close to the length of the wall of the shrine. Moreover, great stone obelisks stand in the precinct; and there is a lake nearby, adorned with a stone margin and made in a complete circle; it is, as it seemed to me, the size of the lake at Delos which they call the Round Pond. On this lake they enact by night the story of the god's sufferings, a rite which the Egyptians call the Mysteries. I could say more about this, for I know the truth, but let me preserve a discreet silence." -- Herodotos, historian, Book II:169-171, ~440-420 B.C.

Also see Plato's Timaeus.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

Please provide evidence that the planet Venus was regarded as two goddesses.

"Below the Sun revolves the great star called Venus, wandering with an alternate motion, and, even in its surnames, rivalling the Sun and the Moon. For when it precedes the day and rises in the morning, it receives the name of Lucifer, as if it were another sun, hastening on the day. On the contrary, when it shines in the west, it is named Vesper, as prolonging the light, and performing the office of the moon. Pythagoras the Samian, was the first who discovered its nature, about the 62nd olympiad, in the 222nd year of the City." -- Pliny the Elder, historian, 77

"Parmenides, too, assures us, that he [Pythagoras] was the first person who asserted the identity of Hesperus and Lucifer [Venus]." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

Please provide evidence from either Homer or Plato whereby Athene and Aphrodite are shown to be the same.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

if Hephaistos is Mercury, then what planet is Hermes?

They are both Mercury.

Did the Greeks manage to get any of their mythology right?

Yes. They worshipped the same planets that every other society on Earth did.

The passage still does not prove that god = planet full stop.

Every other passage you ignored does.

The main problem with the hypothesis as I see it is that the planets existed before the coming of the Olympians. All the planets had Titans associated with them.

Except for Venus.

"In an ancient Hindu tablet of planets, attributed to the year -3012 Venus among the visible planets is absent [Delambre, J.B.J., Histoire de l'astronomie ancienne I, Page 407, 1817: 'Venus alone is not found there.']." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1950

"These four-planet systems and the inability of the ancient Hindus and Babylonians to see Venus in the sky, even though it is more conspicuous than the other planets, are puzzling unless Venus was not among the planets." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1950

Could you provide examples from the Heraclitean fragments which support this claim?

"The thunderbolt steers the course of all things." -- Herakleitos, philosopher, 5th century B.C.

Are you saying that, e.g., the Greek river-god Xanthus was in fact a Judeo-Christian angel?

Correct.

The river god was an extraterrestrial lord known in the Babylonian Atrahasis epic as Ennugi.

"When the gods instead of man
Did the work, bore the loads,
The gods' load was too great,
The work too hard, the trouble too much.
The great Annunaki made the Igigi [humans]
Carry the workload sevenfold.
Anu their father was king,
Their counsellor warrior Ellil
Their chamberlain was Ninurta,
Their canal-controller Ennugi...."
-- The Atrahasis Epic, 18th century B.C.

[Grey Cloud]

Not exactly ‘Solon’s Diaries’ but I can understand where you are coming from. My main problem with the passage is the the last part: ‘and was carefully studied by me when I was a child’, added to the fact that this spoken by Critias rather than Socrates. One would also have to consider that the information comes from the Egyptian priest, via Solon, Dropides and then Critias before it gets to the reader. In other words, it’s hearsay (Critias implies that he has not read the document since childhood). Timaeus begins his main speech by asking the following question:
“What is that which always is and has no becoming, and what is is that which is always becoming and never is?”
To which he gives the answer:
“That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is”.
I would have to re-read Critias and have a good think about it before I committed myself one way or the other. For an insight into the subtlety of Plato see:
http://plato-dialogues.org/email/960605_1.htm [Excellent site for the study of Plato]
And why did you interpolate 'antarctica' into the passage?

Please provide evidence of ancient writers saying that Athene or Neith is the planet Venus.

Already provided.

You have not provided any evidence. What you have done is to make several assertions and to provide quotes, such as the one from Herodotus, which do not back-up your assertions. Nothing in the Herodotus quote even hints at the planet Venus. And why have you interpolated the name of Osiris into the passage?

Your quote from Pliny merely names two of Venus’ epithets, it makes no mention of two goddesses. As you well know most, if not all, Greek and Roman deities had multiple epithets.

Similarly, the quote from Diogenes makes no mention of a goddess or goddesses.

Could you be a bit more specific as to how or where in Timaeus the connection is made?

if Hephaistos is Mercury, then what planet is Hermes?

They are both Mercury.

Says who? Here is another example whereby you make an assertion and offer it as evidence. If Hephaisto is the planet Mercury, then how do you explain the fact that Hephaistos is always depicted as lame or crippled? And, while you are at it, why Hermes as the messenger of Zeus can go anywhere?

Did the Greeks manage to get any of their mythology right?

Yes. They worshipped the same planets that every other society on Earth did.

Homer, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Plato, et al did not worship planets. If you believe that mythology is concerned only with the planets then you are mistaken. Do you understand what the Mysteries are, as mention by Herodotus in your quote?

The passage still does not prove that god = planet full stop.

Every other passage you ignored does.

What passages that I have ignored? Do you mean your assertions and those by the modern authors?

The main problem with the hypothesis as I see it is that the planets existed before the coming of the Olympians. All the planets had Titans associated with them.

Except for Venus.

Sun – Theia and Hyperion
Moon – Phoebe and Atlas
Mars – Dione and Cruis
Mercury – Metis and Koios
Jupiter – Themis and Eurymedon
Saturn – Rhea and Cronos
And, last but by no means least ….
Venus – Tethys and Oceanos.

That’s according to the Pelasgians.

Your two quotes by Velikovsky, one without a source and the other with a source dating to 1817 mean nothing to me. Have you checked Velikovsky’s French language source?

All Heraclitus does is prove the ancients possessed a fully developed plasma cosmology from laboratory experiments millenia before Birkeland and Alfven

Could you provide examples from the Heraclitean fragments which support this claim?

"The thunderbolt steers the course of all things." -- Herakleitos, philosopher, 5th century B.C.

Words fail me so I will let Heraclitus speak for himself:

“Though this Word* is true evermore, yet men are as unable to understand it when they hear it for the first time as before they have heard it at all. For, though, all things come to pass in accordance with this Word, men seem as if they had no experience of them, when they make trial of words and deeds such as I set forth, dividing each thing according to its nature and showing how it truly is. But other men know not what they are doing when awake, even as they forget what they do in sleep”. Fr. 1.

* 'Word' = Logos which the French translate more accurately as 'verb'.

“Couples are things whole and not whole, what is drawn together and what is drawn asunder, the harmonious and discordant. The one is made up of all things, and all things issue from the one” Fr. 10.
“This world, which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made; but it was ever, is now and ever shall be an ever-living. Fire, with measures kindling and measures going out”. Fr. 30.

“The wise is one only. It is unwilling and willing to be called by the name of Zeus”. Fr. 32.

“Wisdom is one thing. It is to know the thought by which all things are steered through all things”. Fr. 41.

“We step and do not step into the same rivers; we are and are not”. Fr. 49a.

“It is wise to hearken, not to me, but to my Word, and to confess that all things are one”. Fr. 50.

“God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, surfeit and hunger; but he takes various shapes, just as fire, when it is mingled with spices, is named according to the savour of each” Fr. 67.

You might want to compare those fragments with the teachings of Taoism, the Vedas, Hermeticism, Alchemy and mythologies (various),for instance. All are singing from the same hymn sheet and none are worshipping planets.

Are you saying that, e.g., the Greek river-god Xanthus was in fact a Judeo-Christian angel?

Correct.

What about the Ganges, would it perchance be an angel too?

The river god was an extraterrestrial lord known in the Babylonian Atrahasis epic as Ennugi.

So an angel is an ET?

“It is best to hide folly”. Heraclitus, Fr. 95.

Just for the record, I have scanned through this thread and cannot find where Moses provides evidence for Hephaistos being planetary, other than his post of an unattributed quote which makes no suggestion of planets, Mercury or otherwise.

[Grey Cloud]

I would be interested in what evidence either of you have for Hephaistos being 'planetary'.
Grey Cloud
http://messagenetcommresearch.com/myths ... istos.html
"Hephaistos fashioned his own mechanical helpers to assist him in his work. They are golden and in the form of living young women; strong, vocal and intelligent (Iliad, book 18, line 417). He built tri-pods that move of their own accord to and from the feasts on Mount Olympos (Olympus) (Iliad, book 18, line 372). He built the homes of all the Olympians and fitted them with clever locks that the other immortals cannot undo. With the help of his Kyklopes (Cyclops), he hammers out lightning bolts for Zeus and all manner of subtle and gentle devices for a select few mortals."
That will do me.
Mo

So you see that as providing proof that Hephaistos is a planet? Where is the quote from? It was the Elder Cyclops who made Zeus' thunderbolts, not Hephaistos. Incidentally Hephaistos, according to some ancient accounts, moves around on what can only be described as motorised roller-skates.

[Total Science]

Grey Cloud,

In other words, it’s hearsay

By your defintion, over 99% of history is heresay. Does that mean it never happened?

Either you believe in history or you don't. I do; obviously you don't.

"... I believe it is only fair to acknowledge an underlying and totally sincere scientific disbelief in the historical record." -- Ralph E. Juergens, engineer, 1972

And why did you interpolate 'antarctica' into the passage?

Because Sonchis and Plato's description of Atlantis is a description of Antarctica.



"... in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, 6th century B.C.

Atlantis is Antarctica.

And we have Kircher's ancient Egyptian map to prove it.

You have not provided any evidence.

Tautological facts don't require evidence. They are self-evident. Neith is the planet Venus. Since Athena is Neith, therefore Athena is Venus. Very basic logic.

Similarly, the quote from Diogenes makes no mention of a goddess or goddesses.

Are you saying that Lucifer and Vesper are mortals? Evidence please.

If Hephaisto is the planet Mercury, then how do you explain the fact that Hephaistos is always depicted as lame or crippled? And, while you are at it, why Hermes as the messenger of Zeus can go anywhere?

Possibly Hermes is the name of Mercury when it's being tossed around from planet to planet; Hephaistos when it is in it's present orbit.

That’s according to the Pelasgians.

There are no Pelasgian works that survived antiquity. Evidence please.

So an angel is an ET?

Correct.

"I wonder if what we now call the UFO reality, and what the Bible calls angels of God, are not the same reality. If this is true, then we humans have a lot of thinking to do." -- Barry H. Downing, author, 1997

"I believe it is time we explored the possibility that UFOs carry the angels of God." -- Barry H. Downing, author, 1997

[StefanR]

Grey Cloud,

In other words, it’s hearsay

By your defintion, over 99% of history is heresay. Does that mean it never happened?

Either you believe in history or you don't. I do; obviously you don't.

"... I believe it is only fair to acknowledge an underlying and totally sincere scientific disbelief in the historical record." -- Ralph E. Juergens, engineer, 1972

And why did you interpolate 'antarctica' into the passage?

Because Sonchis and Plato's description of Atlantis is a description of Antarctica.



"... in those days the Atlantic was navigable; and there was an island situated in front of the straits which are by you called the Pillars of Heracles; the island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and was the way to other islands, and from these you might pass to the whole of the opposite continent which surrounded the true ocean; for this sea which is within the Straits of Heracles is only a harbour, having a narrow entrance, but that other is a real sea, and the surrounding land may be most truly called a boundless continent." -- Sonchis of Sais, priest, 6th century B.C.

Atlantis is Antarctica.

And we have Kircher's ancient Egyptian map to prove it.

You have not provided any evidence.

Tautological facts don't require evidence. They are self-evident. Neith is the planet Venus. Since Athena is Neith, therefore Athena is Venus. Very basic logic.

Similarly, the quote from Diogenes makes no mention of a goddess or goddesses.

Are you saying that Lucifer and Vesper are mortals? Evidence please.

If Hephaisto is the planet Mercury, then how do you explain the fact that Hephaistos is always depicted as lame or crippled? And, while you are at it, why Hermes as the messenger of Zeus can go anywhere?

Possibly Hermes is the name of Mercury when it's being tossed around from planet to planet; Hephaistos when it is in it's present orbit.

That’s according to the Pelasgians.

There are no Pelasgian works that survived antiquity. Evidence please.

So an angel is an ET?

Correct.

"I wonder if what we now call the UFO reality, and what the Bible calls angels of God, are not the same reality. If this is true, then we humans have a lot of thinking to do." -- Barry H. Downing, author, 1997

"I believe it is time we explored the possibility that UFOs carry the angels of God." -- Barry H. Downing, author, 1997

Personally I don't think history is something you believe in, it is a matter of trying to understand what historic and modern sources say about an historic event and to see if one can verify the statements with what can still be found today. As long as there is not enough data to make definite statements it seems wiser not to make concrete judgements but suspend that judgement and see if one can make ones opinion about something historic more sure by finding new data.

As for Antarctica being a supposed Atlantis, all seems well until one has to find a way to explain that at the same time in the Critias it is mentioned that it sunk and made that part of the sea badly navigable by ship because of the mud. So as long as there are mountainranges on Antarctica and until this day a sailingboat has never traversed these, it seems highly unlikely that Antarctica would be Atlantis. Even Kircher phantasizing about it, doesn't change that fact.

As for Athena and Neith (or whatever the spelling may be), for sure it is possible to compare gods between different theological/religious systems, but one has to be very careful in confusing the fact that saying that somethings are the same is something different than saying somethings are similar. Although perhaps certain correspondences can be found between for instance Athena and Neith, they still have markedly different functions and attributes within their own system. Even more so if one has to deal with them not only theologically but also philosophically, as Plato and also Egyptians have done.
Also names of gods maybe be in use of several centuries or even millenia, one can see that there function or placing in rank may differ because of different cultures moving into the region and adapting/integrating the regional system into their system or vice versa. This has happened in Egypt as well as Greece.
There is a lot more to names of gods and what they signify than mere planets, the more probable is even that the planetary naming even in Classical times had more to do with putting astronomy in relation to religion/philosophy than the other way around.

As for angels and e.t.'s, it seems to me mister Downing is not so original in his ideas, even worse, he seems to have misunderstood Jacques Vallee in an essential way. I don't know if you know Vallee's books but it could be a good idea to look him up in the library or something like that.