Ancient textual evidence for planetary catastrophe?

[mague]

People knew what they were doing was wrong.

Wrong by whose standards? The Aztecs thought they were re-charging the Sun by giving back the energy (or life-force) of the sacrificed. The 'victims' were sacrificed to save the world. Part of this ritual involved something called the 'opening of the mouth' which sounds entirely similar to an Egyptian ritual.

Conscience ?

Natural concience is not result of social/cultural imprint. You are born with it. But you are able to override it. Its as sensible as the needle of a compass.

You know the story about feeding the sun is not true, do you ?
Howl

Feed the beast, so it stops wispering in my mind
Feed the beast with the childs of others. So it spares mine
Drink the blood to forget how unhappy you are without your concience
Drink more blood so you can forget that you have drunk human blood
Drink more blood so you dont have to remeber the screams of the sacrifies
Open their mouth and inhale their Ka as a dessert after all that blood
Open their mouth and inhale their Ka, so the flash of power let me forget how misserable i am

Now i am full of prions
Now i am mad and my wife gave birth to a monster

I need more blood
I need more Ka

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Seasmith,
You reminded me of this which I originally posted in the now defunct Origins of Myth forum:

Plutarch's Isis and Osiris. In a throw-away comment, Plutarch mentions that according to Eudoxus, Typhon (Egyptian Set or Seth) had 56 angles and that Pythagorus assigns the number 56 to Typhon.

I never did get to the bottom of it, though I have the nagging feeling that I should know.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Stefan,
Thanks for the offer about Fabre d'Olivet, anyone who was declared a non-person by Napoleon and condemned by the Pope sounds like my sort of guy. Are there any links you could provide or titles of books, to save yourself the typing? Failing that, a brief synopsis would do. I may be familiar with his ideas via someone else.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Kevin,
Thanks for the links. I will check them out properly when I get time.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Nick,
Unlike the Bible I don't claim inerrancy but I'll stick to my statement in this case.
The LXX agrees with the 120 years but Noah lives on for several hundred 'years' after this statement / decree. When it comes to the generations of Noah's sons' sons the OT doesn't mention any lengths. I don't know when the next time the OT mentions actual lengths.
Noah's grandchildren are the ones, according to the OT, who go forth after the Deluge to populate the world. But as I mentioned in my reply to Brigit, the world was already populated, e.g. Egypt, Assyria, India etc. I'm guessing that the Egyptians for example were using a solar or lunisolar calendar by this time and the Hebrews fell in with the ways of the culture they joined, at least for secular purposes.
Bear in mind also, that the OT was written by committee and that by the time it was written the Hebrews had been captured, conquered or ruled by several different nations. The OT is just a mish-mash of elements from these other cultures.
All the Abrahamic religions use a lunar calendar to this day for working out their festivals etc. As do the Hindus.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Mague,
You wrote:

You know the story about feeding the sun is not true, do you ?

I'm not saying the Aztecs were right or wrong in either a practical or moral sense. I'm just saying that was their rationale for what they did. The Inquisition stuck red-hot pokers up people's posterior orifices in order to drive out demons. The damage and trauma to the physical body was, according to their rationale, a small price to pay for the saving of the immortal soul. The Inquisitors also used to take notes so they could better understand which 'treatment' worked best of what type of demon. This is one of the reasons I am not a big fan of logic.

As for the Ginsberg poem, so he couldn't handle the drugs he took. I know several old acid-heads who paint quite a different picture. I also know someone who has taken Salvia Divinorum and who paints a different picture still. I also know about where I go when smoking pot.
I don't do dark and negative, nor do I do light and positive. Grey Cloud tries to take the middle way.

[Grey Cloud]

Here's Eusebius' comments on the lunar / solar year issue with regard to the Egyptians:

From the Egyptian records of Manetho, who composed in three books commentaries about the gods, demi-gods, spirits, and the mortal kings who ruled over the Egyptians, up until the time of Dareius the king of the Persians.
The first man amongst the Egyptians was Hephaestus, who discovered fire for them; he was the father of Sol [the Sun]. After him came [(?)Agathodaemon; then] Cronus; then Osiris; then Typhon the brother of Osiris; and then Horus the son of Osiris and Isis. These were the first rulers of the Egyptians. [p135] After them, one king succeeded another until the time of Bidis, for a total of 13,900 years - calculated by lunar years, which lasted for 30 days. That is the period which we now call a month, but the men of that time called it a year.
After the gods, a race of demi-gods ruled for 1,255 years. After them, other kings ruled [the country] for 1,817 years. After them, 30 kings from Memphis [ruled] for 1,790 years; and then another ten kings from Thinis ruled for 350 years. And then the shades and demi-gods were kings, for 5,813 years. The total for all of these is 11,000 years - which are lunar years, or months.
The total time, which the Egyptians assign to the gods and demi-gods and spirits is 24,900 lunar years - which is the equivalent of 2,206 solar years. If you compare this figure with the chronology of the Hebrews, you will find almost the same number of years. For Aegyptus is called Mizraim by the Hebrews; and he was born many years after the time of the flood. It was after the time of the flood that Ham the son of Noah became the father of Mizraim, who was also called Aegyptus; and when the nations were scattered around the earth, Mizraim set off for Egypt to live there. According to the Hebrews, there were 2,242 years in all from Adam until the flood.
So let the Egyptians boast of their antiquity, in the ancient times which preceded the flood. They say that they had some gods, demi-gods and shades. If the years which are recorded by the Hebrews are converted to months, the total is over 20,000 lunar years, so that there are about the same number of months as are contained in the years recorded by the Hebrews, when we count the years from the first-born man up until Mizraim. Mizraim was the patriarch of the Egyptians, and the first dynasty of the Egyptians was descended from him.

[Grey Cloud]

A few snippets from Eusebius (using Manetho) which are relevant to this thread:

1st Dynasty. Menes and his seven descendants:
Semempses, 18 years - In his reign there were many prodigies, and a great pestilence.

2nd Dynasty. 9 kings:
Firstly, Bochus, in whose reign a chasm appeared in the ground at Bubastis, and many were killed.

3rd Dynasty. 8 kings of Memphis:
Necherochis
- In his reign the Libyans revolted from the Egyptians, but when the moon unexpectedly grew in size, they were moved by fear and surrendered again.

He mentions the ruler at the time of the Exodus but does not record any strange goings on at that time.

[StefanR]

Thanks for the offer about Fabre d'Olivet, anyone who was declared a non-person by Napoleon and condemned by the Pope sounds like my sort of guy. Are there any links you could provide or titles of books, to save yourself the typing? Failing that, a brief synopsis would do. I may be familiar with his ideas via someone else.

Well you surprise me a little with that, as you seem like you have already read so many books about antiquity and philosophy. If you are unfamiliar with his works, then you will have to, just as with the Pico de Mirandola book, add this valuable voice from the past to the choir you are already listening to, so to speak. The only online book of him that I know of is here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ogv/index.htm and http://www.archive.org/search.php?query ... d%20olivet
And that is "the golden verses of Pythagoras". For the below quotes are taken again from his "The secret lore of Music". He comes to the point of these quotes, because in that section he trying to show who the origens/originators of music in various cultures actually were. The idea is a little similar as is talked about Atlantis in the danish link you gave on the previous page of this thread.
As for your familiarity with "his ideas", well, if you have an idea of the Perennial Philosophy then you will most certainly will be knowledgable about them via "someone" else.

Ok let me see if I can keep it short:

...... .Certain christian authors opposed to this general consensus of the most ancient civilized nation a text which they thought was contained in the Sefer of Moses, the sacred book of the hebrews, where it is said (according to Saint Jerome's version) that a son of Lamech and his first wife, called Jubal, was the father of those who sing to the guitar and the organ.
It would be impossible to make a worse translation of the hebrew text. But it was not so much the fault of Saint Jerome as of the hellenized jews whose illusory translation he was obliged to follow word for word.
This translation commonly called the Septuagint, enjoyed at the same time such favor among the principle doctors of the christian church that they regarded it as divine and preferable to the original. They would not have allowed anyone to diverge from it too ostensibly; and even so, for all his care to follow it the most important points, Saint Jerome had the greatest difficulty in having his latin translation accepted, and found himself on the brink of persecution on account of some slight changes he had thought necessary to make in the most shoking places.
This is not the place to examine why the hellenized jews responded so badly to their commission from King Ptolomy in Egypt, in presenting him in bade Greek more a travesty than a translation of their Sefer. It is enough to say here that their consciences, bound by a divine law and by the most solemn oath, forbade them to communicate their sacred scriptures to the profane.
It is however true to say that in the passage in question, the sense presented by the Septuagint is even worse, and further from the original than that of the Vulgate, because Jubal is given there as the father not only of singers but also of prayers of the psaltery and the guitar. Saint Jerome, in correcting this absurdity, followed the hebrew paraphrase, but this paraphrase was far from showing him the truth. Since this text has some small importance, I believe I may give it here in its integral from. The reader will perhaps spare me the proofs that I cannot prsent here wothout going far beyond the bounds of a simple digression. Here is the exact translation of the original text:
And the name of the brother (of Jabal) was Jubal, he
who was the father (thegenerating pronciple) of every
lumious and lovable conception. (that is, of the
sciences in general as well as of the fine arts.)
One can already see a very great difference between my translation and the two versions I have cited, because it is doubtless a very different matter to say of any being that it is the generating pronciple of the sciences and the fine arts in general, that to say in particular that he is the father of singers or players on the psaltery,guitar, organ. But that would still be nothing unless one could infer an even more noteworthy differnce. This essential difference stems from the fact that both in the Septuagint and in the version of Saint Jerome the generating pronciple of the sciences and fine arts ( or if one prefers the literal version, the father of every luminous and lovable conception), Jubal, is represented as a man, son of a father and mother,existing in the flesh in a certain country at a certain time, and actually playing or singing to the guitar; wheras he is a universal metaphysical being, a cosmogonic personage, to whose influence and inspiration are due the developments of all these lovable and brilliant sciences in general,and in particular those of music, among all men, at all times, and in all nations. Jubal differs in no respect from Anubis, to whom he is associated by the very root of his name, and we are well aware that Anubis is no different from Thot, from Herms, form Mercury, considered as the creators of eloquence, poetry, and music, and sharing this prerogative with Osiris, Apollo, and Olen. The father whom Moses gives to Jubal is no more a human being than he: he is a being of the same species as Jubal, a metaphysical being who preceds him in he order of cosmogonic generations. One must say the same about the father of Lamech and of all the other personages who are named before him.
.........
This error, whose consequences are of the highest importance if one wants to understand the ancient sciences, has it's source in the ignorance of most of the erudite moderns of the way in which the Ancients wrote history. This has no resemblance to our own. The Ancients considered things in general and in their metaphysical relationships. We note dates and facts with scrupulous accuracy, we follow step be step the lives of individuals who did not concern them in the least. Their history, entrusted to human memory or preserved in the priestly archives of the temples in separate fragments of poetry, were all allegorical; individual people were nothing to it; it saw everywhere the universal spirit that moved them, it personified all its faculties, opposed them to one another, and their developments. It is in transforming these spiritual faculties, or, if one prefers, these moral beings, into so many human individuals, that have fallen into such shocking contradictions with regard to Moses, and disfigured the cosmogony of that divine man to the pint of making it unrecognizable.
One of the worst of these blunders, after having seen men where there were moral beings, was without doubt that of seeing human years where there were moral revolutions. Consequently, however long one made the lives of these pretended patriarchs, their small number compelled one to attribute to the earth an extremely recent origin. That has put us in opposition not only with the traditions of other peoples but even with the lineaments of age that the powerful hands of time have everywhere impressed upon our globe. Natural history here argues against positive history. Even if the annals of the chinese did not support those of the hindus, the assyrians, and the egyptians, which all count a throng of centuries before the epoch in which the jewish scribes have placed the beginning of the world, it would suffice to examine without bias the ancient monuments, which the earth still carries on its surface, such as the Pyramids, The Catacombs of Thebes in Egypt, the Temples of Mahabalipuram, and the Caves of Elephanta in India; or even to examine as physicists the immense ruins that it conceals everywhere in the stupendous depths of its entrails, to be convinced that the six thousand years that these jews granted to Antiquity are but a day in the long period of its existence.
.........
As for determingprecisely the date of the appearance in each race of the famous man who, blessed with a primary inspiration, molded the destiny of the science or gave it its laws, it would be very difficult, especially for those whose epoch goes back more than three or four thousand years: for with the possible exception of China, where they began early on to write what we call the Annals, it is scrcely thirt centuries since men first bethought themselves in the present world of writing positive and chronological history in the way we write it today. Before this epoch history was, as I have said, entirely allegorical, and the priests who wrote it in verse did not trouble with individuals except in relation to the spirit that animated them and used them as collective beings. Thus in ancient Egypt, for example, where all the kings reigned under the same name, they wrote the history of kingship, not that of the king. each dynasty was like a particular being with its own physiognomt. A musician or a poet who wrote music or poetry could not have given forth his book under any name but that of Thot; and this is why they counted, in Manetho's time, more than thirtty-sex thousand volumes that carried this sacred name. today, when the merest compiler places with his name on the title page of his book five or six lines of academic and literary tirles; but such was the custom in those distant times.
Thus it would be a great waste of time to try to fix the date of the appearance of Toth in Egypt, or of Bharata in India. Those modern savants who have tried to do so, unable to get beyond the narrow limits in which the faulty translation of the Sefer has enclosed them, have fallen into the most palpable errors. But this translation does not at all represent the text, which of course leaves perfect liberty in this regard. If one wished to know the approximate date of this epoch, one should keep to the text of Plato that I have qouted above, in which this philosopher affirms that the musical system which the egyptian priesthood still followed in his time went back more than ten thousend years; which would give to this system, and consequently to Thoth as its author, an antiquity of more than twelve thousnad years. But Bharata was far earlier than Thoth, at least than the one who was the legislator of the egyptians; for it is quite possible that there existed in an even more ancient period another Thoth, belonging to a primitive world, who under the name of Boudh, Baoudh, or Vaoudh served as the model for almost all the legislators of the present world. But this is not the place to explain this historical difficulty. It belongs to the general history of the earth, and here I must restrict myself to what concerns music.
I said that the first musical system attributed by the hindus to Baratha preceded the one that the Egyptians recieved from Thoth. This is proven by the sacred books of the Brahmins, where the anteriority of Bharatversh over Mestra-Stan , that is, of India over Egypt, is firmly established. One can read in these books that several successive emigrations have taken place from Asia to Africa, and that it is principally from the bosom of India that Egypt recieved its first colonists and its laws. The greek and latin writers confirm all these traditions by giving the name of Indians ti the inhabitants of Africa nearest to Egypt, and, as the judicious Freret rightly remarks, by confusing EWthiopia with India and the Nile with the Ganges.

Fabre d'Olivet - The secret lore of music - The hidden power of Orpheus (tr. J. Godwin)

(Cursed thou oh inventor of the keyboard! )

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Stefan,
Thank you very much, that was much appreciated. I'll get back to you tomorrow as that passage seems to support some thoughts I had about the Iliad, something I was thinking about last night and about a zillion things which are now flying around in my head. Magic.
There again I probably wont get much sleep tonight

[Solar]

This error, whose consequences are of the highest importance if one wants to understand the ancient sciences, has it's source in the ignorance of most of the erudite moderns of the way in which the Ancients wrote history. This has no resemblance to our own. The Ancients considered things in general and in their metaphysical relationships. We note dates and facts with scrupulous accuracy, we follow step be step the lives of individuals who did not concern them in the least. Their history, entrusted to human memory or preserved in the priestly archives of the temples in separate fragments of poetry, were all allegorical; individual people were nothing to it; it saw everywhere the universal spirit that moved them, it personified all its faculties, opposed them to one another, and their developments. It is in transforming these spiritual faculties, or, if one prefers, these moral beings, into so many human individuals, that have fallen into such shocking contradictions with regard to Moses, and disfigured the cosmogony of that divine man to the point of making it unrecognizable.

To that extent; then perhaps a multitude of "catastrophes" await in allegorical 'plain sight' for the reader of ancient text.

As for your familiarity with "his ideas", well, if you have an idea of the Perennial Philosophy then you will most certainly will be knowledgable about them via "someone" else.

Aye. A point of great clarity to be sure.

[StefanR]

To that extent; then perhaps a multitude of "catastrophes" await in allegorical 'plain sight' for the reader of ancient text.

If one is sure of the correct text (as in translation or copy of the original work) and is assured of the fact that one is dealing with a cosmogonic or moral text, for sure, who is to say it will not stop your world and utterly devistate all it's peoples and civilisations erasing all it's memories, let floods of heavenly waters cleans them of erronious principalities and godlike fire obliterates statues of grandeur, and maybe after that, let a new light shine upon your world, allegorically speaking that is.

[Solar]

If one is sure of the correct text (as in translation or copy of the original work) and is assured of the fact that one is dealing with a cosmogonic or moral text, for sure, who is to say it will not stop your world and utterly devistate all it's peoples and civilisations erasing all it's memories, let floods of heavenly waters cleans them of erronious principalities and godlike fire obliterates statues of grandeur, and maybe after that, let a new light shine upon your world, allegorically speaking that is.

Well understood, stated, and true. Yet, there is much evidence that speaks to eras long forgotten in the annals of humanity's history as you are no doubt aware of. A plethora of Out of place Artifacts speaking to ages long past. These *may* correlate as being one in the same with respect to the allegorical being also the occurrence of the physical owing to that evidence. As put forth by Fabre d'Olivet, and "others", a strict reference frame as to dates, times, and places *may* occur but would be beside the point and only underscores the "error" which is "of the highest importance if one wants to understand the ancient sciences, has it's source in the ignorance of most of the erudite moderns of the way in which the Ancients wrote history."

I'm also reminded of Michael Cremo's "Forbidden Archeology" which also destroys their "error" by revealing those archeological aspects tucked away in the basements of museums across the globe shedding light on an ancient humanity for whom "catastrophe", both allegorical and literal appears cyclical. This will not be revealed through "erudite experts" transliterating allegory and establishing dates, times etc that stand in stark contrast to evidence that doesn't "fit" their "reference frame".

I'm being overly wordy. I enjoy recognitions from those who "get it" as it were. So thank you Stephan.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Stefan,
Some initial thoughts on the Fabre d'Olivet passage.

It is however true to say that in the passage in question, the sense presented by the Septuagint is even worse, and further from the original than that of the Vulgate,...

I think he is incorrect here because a) the Septuagint is the oldest version, modern Jews using the later Masoretic text, and b) there is little if anything original in the whichever version is used, being mostly a combination of Babylonian, Phoenician, Egyptian etc material
(to say nothing of the Perennial Philosophy generally). Be that as it may, the crux of the passage is this part:

This error, whose consequences are of the highest importance if one wants to understand the ancient sciences, has it's source in the ignorance of most of the erudite moderns of the way in which the Ancients wrote history. This has no resemblance to our own. The Ancients considered things in general and in their metaphysical relationships. We note dates and facts with scrupulous accuracy, we follow step be step the lives of individuals who did not concern them in the least. Their history, entrusted to human memory or preserved in the priestly archives of the temples in separate fragments of poetry, were all allegorical; individual people were nothing to it; it saw everywhere the universal spirit that moved them, it personified all its faculties, opposed them to one another, and their developments. It is in transforming these spiritual faculties, or, if one prefers, these moral beings, into so many human individuals, that have fallen into such shocking contradictions with regard to Moses, and disfigured the cosmogony of that divine man to the point of making it unrecognizable.

D'Olivet makes some good points there but, I feel, he falls into the either / or trap, i.e. it is either allegorical or it isn't. My own view is that, speaking generally, these ancient texts can and usually do operate at several levels simultaneously.
An obvious example, and one I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is the Iliad. In this wonderful book there is:
Popular history - How we Greeks are superior to them there pesky Trojans. And here, I believe that the heroes (small aitch) are based on real people, just as British legends of, say, King Arthur or Robin Hood are based on actual people.Related to this is the macho eyeball to
eyeball combat and the blood and gore (and there is plenty of this latter).
Then there is a moral dimension - The futility of war, e.g. no matter how good you are you can still get killed by accident or chance. For example there are several incidents where person A hurls a spear at person B. B dodges and person C stood behind him takes the spear full in the face resulting in an explosion of eyes, teeth and brains from 'the cruel bronze' as Homer calls it.
There is also personal morality as in the behaviour of, e.g. Agamemnon in his caliming of Briseis, and Achilles behaviour in reaction to this. On the other side there is Hector's behaviour when he get's the armour of Achilles from the body of Patroclus, and Menelaus' behaviour when he defends the body of Patroclus. (Magnificent scene that one).
There is politics in the various councils held by both coalitions, and also in the truces arranged between Greeks and Trojans etc.
There is metaphysics involved in the various scenes involving the gods etc. And the lesson here is that there are no 'gods'.
Then there is the Alchemy. This is one of, if not the, central themes of the book. Bear in mind that Achilles does not die in the Iliad or in anything written by Homer (there is no Wooden Horse either). For those who know something of the alchemical process (those who don't can consider the stories of Jesus, Daniel, Jonah and the Buddha):
Achilles spends most of the book in his tent (tomb, womb, cave, den, whale etc). At one point he is offered vast amounts of treasure and riches by Agamemnon which he refuses.
Patroclus is related to Achilles (cousin), Patroclus was trained by Achilles (both in arms and leadership), they were supposed to be lovers. Patroclus is wearing the armour of Achilles when he is killed.
Patroclus IS Achilles. It is only the death of Patroclus that Achilles comes out of his tent. When he does emerge he is a transformed character - he is beyond good and evil. His new Adamantine armour, as produced by Hephaestus (who represents the creative spark or impulse) is Achilles' Will. En route to take on Hector, Achilles battles a river-god (Scamander). Scamander represents a force of Nature and in order to defeat (control) this force of Nature, Achilles is aided by Hera, via Hephaestus, who represent higher forces (or Laws) of Nature.
Achilles defeats Hector with the aid of Athene and his armour - his Mind and his Will.
After the death of Hector (Hektor, tamer of horses), Hermes comes into the story. Whereas Athene represents the Mind (Plato's higher mind) and is a sort of intermediate step, Hermes represents a direct connection with the Universal Mind.
There is much, much more in this awesome. I got all that and much more from one quick read. I finished it 6-8 weeks ago and there are still things popping into my head.
The OT will be similar in content but it is so scrambled and corrupted that it is very diffcult to glean anything from it. For example, morality in the OT is virtually non-existent unless one flips or reverses what is written. Homer (and Greeks generally) have no problem extolling the virtues of their enemies but the Hebrews, Jews, Israelites do nothing but gloat over the mis-fortunes of theirs. There is none of the grace, subtlety, gentility, compassion or beauty of
Plato in any of the Abrahamic literature.
There is cosmology, alchemy, etc in the OT, e.g. the 'Fall' is alchemy (in reverse - one becoming two) but it is very difficult to make any sense of anything.
There is also subjects such as anatomy in some of these ancient texts. I personally don't know much about anatomy but often, e.g. the numbers of 'sons' represent the number of bones in a particular part of the body.
I have no problem with D'Olivet's assertion that humans have been on this planet for a very long time - this fits in with my understanding of cyclical time as per the Vedas etc. I see the OT as being post-catastrophe whereas the Vedas go back much further, at least as far as the content is concerned).

Stefan you are now level-pegging with Edwin Van Der Sar as my favourite Nederlander I hope you have had as easy a day as he has (United beat Bolton to move to the top of the Premiership ). Here's a little (strained) synchronicity for you:
I've just noticed that our newest member is called David Sadler. David Sadler was a member of United's European Cup winng side of 1968. United beat Benfica who had a (great) player named Eusebio. Sadler only played because Denis Law was injured. Denis Bergkamp was named after Denis Law (King Denis). I thought I would throw that in at no extra cost.

[Solar]

D'Olivet makes some good points there but, I feel, he falls into the either / or trap, i.e. it is either allegorical or it isn't. My own view is that, speaking generally, these ancient texts can and usually do operate at several levels simultaneously.

Very good then Grey. Isn't is probably the case that D'Olivet was also in recognition that the ancient texts can operate at several levels - and that he may have focused on the appropriate level to highlight the interpretive flaws that limit the "erudite scholars" from seeing the broader picture just as your post demonstrates?