Planet names

[Siggy_G]

During the "Symbols of an Alien Sky" documentary, David Talbot says that "the earliest astronomers insisted that the gods were planets". I find this statement very interesting, as it's implication is significant, but can anyone point to historical documents/sites that mentions this?

Also, weren't the planets named after Roman Gods, during Ancient Roman/Greek period? Or was it earlier?

In any case, it is truly an interesting point that one could wonder why the far ancients labeled such spectacular powers to these tiny dots (today) on the night sky. It's an interesting notion that some of them may have been way closer during not-very-distant human history.

[nick c]

hi Siggy_G,

David Talbot says that "the earliest astronomers insisted that the gods were planets". I find this statement very interesting, as it's implication is significant, but can anyone point to historical documents/sites that mentions this?

That the gods were celestial bodies is not an unreasonable statement. As an elementary school student being introduced to Greek and Roman mythology, it was obvious that there was a connection between the planets and the gods, they had the same names. Our teacher told us that the planets were named after the gods. Planetary catastrophists have not just simply reversed this supposition, but have redefined it, saying the planets (celestial bodies) are the gods and vice versa.
I do not distinguish between planets and celestial bodies in general, because the ancients did not make any such distinction. All of the celestial bodies are 'stars.'
Planets=wandering star
Star=fixed star
Meteor=shooting star
Comet=hair star, bearded star, serpent star, etc etc.

That star and god were synonymous is obvious from ancient Mesopotamia where the An sign, which is an eight pointed star, is used for the word "Dingir" which translates as "god."
The pictogram of a star is the word for god(s).

But the use of this sign to signify 'god, goddess, or divine being' makes the further allusion that the gods are closely associated with the stars.

http://books.google.com/books?id=nAuTre ... ir&f=false

Also note, that in Egyptian heiroglyphs the "ankh" symbol can mean "god" or "star" as well as the more familiar (to our time) life or life force.

Ankh...life personified, the name of a god
[...]
ankh...star; plur....stars, planets (?)...

http://books.google.com/books?id=8cMWic ... od&f=false

Aristotle writing in Metamorphoses, much later and after this knowledge was lost, tells us the truth. That the mythological stories of the Gods are in reality the story of celestial bodies.

A tradition has been handed down by the ancient thinkers of very early times, and bequeathed to posterity in the form of a myth, to the effect that these heavenly bodies are gods, and that the Divine pervades the whole nature. The rest of their tradition has been added later in a mythological form to influence the vulgar and as a constitutional and utilitarian expedient; they say that these gods are human in shape or like certain other animals...

http://books.google.com/books?id=ENjYgB ... es&f=false

Aristotle is saying:
1.the gods are the heavenly bodies
2.this is from "ancient thinkers" (that is, sources ancient to Aristotle)
3.that the Gods equal the heavenly bodies is the true message of myth handed down to us
4.All the other stuff was added later
5.for the purpose of giving moralistic, practical, and religio/philosophical, etc. guidance to the masses
6.the heavenly bodies were given human or animal form thus concealing their true nature

For whatever psychological reasons, humans do not want to face the implications of the true meaning of these stories, preferring to anthropomorphosize the tales and thus bring them down to earth. So by the time of the Greeks and Romans, which is the root of western civilization, the knowledge of the equation of gods=stars was lost. This process is a human one, and took place in all cultures around the world. As an example of this process of anthropomorphism read Euripides play on the myth of "Phaethon." The characters are people and all very human, showing all human qualities and emotions...lust, greed, love, etc etc. However, Plato (Timaeus) tells us that the truth of this myth is that there were enormous thunderbolts (electrical discharges) and the Sun went off it's course (a subjective interpretation of the disruption in the motion of the Earth) and caused widespread destruction on the Earth, causing the destruction of civilizations. And there have been several such cataclysms, some by fire, some by flood. He then uses this as a segue into the Atlantis story.

Nick

[Siggy_G]

Thanks, Nick! Very interesting indeed.

I'm looking forward to the continuation of "Symbols ..." (part 2 and 3 of 3) in order to see further evidence and signs of this theory. Especially, there needs to be a close approach to how the dynamics and physics could work and the transition from the previous planetary system to the new one. A scientific community would require to see some kind of simulations and animations of how this could have been; not neccesarily as a "proof", but as an illustration. I'm wondering if the slight offset and tilt of the outer planets' orbits, and Kuiper belt, is a remaining sign of a transition (and not just due to the gravitational influence of Jupiter etc.). What was the role and orbits of the other Jovian planets before - was it a part of the Sun's system?

(some images / diagrams of the planet orbits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt )

[daveycreatrix]

Hi Nick,
Could you please elaborate on the thesis that the planets = gods.
I known you have researched this to your own satisfaction but any original references would be appreciated.
Indeed what was it from ancient references that convinced you of the validity of the 'Saturnian' theses.
And by the way which of the two do you lean towards (David Talbott or Dwardu Cardona)?
Davey

[nick c]

hi daveycreatrix,

Could you please elaborate on the thesis that the planets = gods.

I once asked a younger cousin where God lives, he said "up in the sky." Heaven is up in the sky, the gods populate heaven. Aristotle taught us that this is the "original" message of myth, the gods are the heavenly bodies...all the other characteristics (human, animal, and otherwise) were added later, for the benefit of the masses. Since we have been living in a stable solar system for quite some time this original identity has been forgotten and the gods have taken spiritual forms, as humans seek meaning to their existence. We live in a time where we can afford the luxury of the contemplation of philosophical and metaphysical issues. There were times in the ancient past when our ancestors were concerned with not becoming extinct at the hands of a capricious universe beyond their control.
I would not say that planets = gods exclusively, I would prefer "heavenly bodies" = gods (as well as demons, devils, angels, heros, dragons, etc etc) . Fixed stars, comets, meteors, spectacular plasma phenomena, would all be included as "heavenly bodies". Of course, planets would have been the major players. The ancients viewed awesome imagery in the sky, accompanied by disruption and catastrophe on Earth, and interpreted it in subjective terms. Already in ancient times, during classical Greece, this was forgotten. Plato commented on this in Timaeus, attributing it to the disruption of civilization and the demise of learned men, Velikovsky elaborated on this and attributed it to a process of collective amnesia- an innate human compulsion to forget the horrors of the past and consequently, to seek to recreate the repressed memories through ritualistic reenactments.

I known you have researched this to your own satisfaction but any original references would be appreciated.
Indeed what was it from ancient references that convinced you of the validity of the 'Saturnian' theses.

The Sumerians rendered the word 'god' in cuneiform as a star. This is carryover from a more ancient form of pictograph.
Also, Saturn is referred to as a 'sun' and associated with the celestial pole. That is not my own analysis, but the verdict of experts in the field. Experts that were uniformitarians and had no idea of the implications of their translations. As far as the Saturnian thesis is concerned, I would recommend that you or anyone interested read Cardona, Talbott, etc., make your own judgement. All that is asked is that we keep the theory in mind, as future discoveries may support or refute the thesis.

And by the way which of the two do you lean towards (David Talbott or Dwardu Cardona)?

Well, I do not lean, I am open to wherever the evidence leads, the jury is still out. It must be kept in mind that this is a forensic effort- trying to determine what happened- when, where, to who, and how?
The polar configuration originated with Talbott in the 1970's. Right or wrong, that is the place where his analysis led. It was an 'impossible' scenario, but then years later, along came the Electric Universe and polar alignments became 'possible.'
Cardona opts for a semi permanent polar configuration using Herbig-Haro objects as a scaled up version.
Thornhill has suggested that the polar configuration arose as the Saturn system formed as Saturn entered the plasmasphere of the Sun.
This is still a work in progress, I find the consideration of various scenarios exciting, we may never know the exact details. I or anyone else is not required to pick sides, let us see where the evidence goes.

Nick

[daveycreatrix]

Hi Nick,
What confuses me is that you say that:

So by the time of the Greeks and Romans, which is the root of western civilization, the knowledge of the equation of gods=stars was lost.

And then you go on to quote Aristotle in support of the Saturn thesis?
So if by the time of the Greeks and Romans, the knowledge is lost, upon what is the evidence based?
And do you not think it likely that the Greeks and Romans would not be in a better position to interpret what came before, as they would be better placed to consider the preceding traditions?
Surely then, any supporting evidence in favour of the Saturn hypothesis from your point of view must rest solely upon Babylonian and Egyptian cosmologies?
Is that your point?
Just seeking clarification.
Davey

[nick c]

hi Davey,

What confuses me is that you say that:

So by the time of the Greeks and Romans, which is the root of western civilization, the knowledge of the equation of gods=stars was lost.

And then you go on to quote Aristotle in support of the Saturn thesis?
So if by the time of the Greeks and Romans, the knowledge is lost, upon what is the evidence based?
And do you not think it likely that the Greeks and Romans would not be in a better position to interpret what came before, as they would be better placed to consider the preceding traditions?

I can understand the confusion, obviously Aristotle is a classic Greek which would seem to be a contradiction. However, what one man knows does not necessarily speak for the "general" thought of his contempories. From what Aristotle wrote, it is obvious that the connection between the heavenly bodies and the gods had been lost, so his statement serves to enlighten his contempories of this "truth." The celestial body = Gods equation was lost to most of the classic Greeks, the gods had become completely anthropomorphisized, taking on the characteristics of humans; as well as animals, nature (non catastrophic), etc. Zeus became an old man with a white beard, Hera: a jealous spouse, etc. The gods took on human traits. That whomever read my quote knew that there were some Greeks (such as Aristotle and Plato) that were aware or suspected the connection (to celestial bodies), was assumed on my part.
As further indication of this forgetfulness on the part of the classic Greeks I refer you to Plato's, Timaeus and Critias, where an Egyptian priest tells Solon, referring to Greek culture:

'You are all young in mind,' came the reply: 'you have no belief rooted in old tradition and no knowledge hoary with age. And the reason is this. There have been and will be many different calamities to destroy mankind, the greatest of them by fire and water, lesser ones by countless other means. Your own story of Phaethon, child of the sun, harnessed his father's chariot, but was unable to guide it along his father's course and so burnt up things on the earth and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt, is a mythical version of the truth that there is at long intervals a variation in the course of the heavenly bodies and a consequent widespread destruction by fire of things on earth.

highlight added

So Plato goes on to recount how the reason the catastrophes were forgotten is because learned men were destroyed...and so that takes us back to the quote which you questioned, that the classic Greeks were not aware of the truth of myth, such knowledge being available to a select group of learned men, like Aristotle and Plato, who learned it from the older civilizations such as Babylonian and Egyptian.

Surely then, any supporting evidence in favour of the Saturn hypothesis from your point of view must rest solely upon Babylonian and Egyptian cosmologies?
Is that your point?
Just seeking clarification.
Davey

No, while Babylonian and Egyptian cosmology would be, because of their antiquity and the abundance of written material, a valuable resource; the approach is not to rely on them "solely," that is, to the exclusion of all else. A forensic approach is going to consult what ever sources can be used to shed light on the "case" (including sciences such as astronomy, geology, etc.) as well as the body of world myths.

Nick

[daveycreatrix]

Hi Nick,
A lot seems to depend upon the 'forensic' methodology.
Though I'm not sure what this actually is?
It seems to me to be the consensus of the majority?
For a start I have a problem with the term 'forensic' I'm not sure what is actually meant by this?
And why the choice of this term which seems to be simply bolstering a dodgy theory with psuedo-scienticfic terminology.
If it's the consensus of the majority then, surely it's no better than 'Ask the audience'?
If a world wide consensus of opinion was taken upon whether Jesus Christ actually existed and the answer was a resounding 'Yes', would this make it so?
The Saturn theory is an surely an extraordinary theory, requiring extraordinary evidence?
I'm willing to consider all evidence, but so far I've not seen anything to convince me.
It's possible to debate mythology till the cows come home.
I have to wonder why the Saturn theory does not put these events prior to human experience.
Thus avoiding the various interpretations that can be put upon mythological scenarios.
I think you might be the guy to come up with this new theory?
Davey

[nick c]

hi daveycreatrix,

A lot seems to depend upon the 'forensic' methodology.
Though I'm not sure what this actually is?
It seems to me to be the consensus of the majority?
For a start I have a problem with the term 'forensic' I'm not sure what is actually meant by this?

I am using the term "forensic" as an analogy to the approach used by modern scientific criminal investigators. The forensic approach is interdisciplinary, utilizing whatever field of study that is able to contribute to a solution to the mystery in question.
Here is a working defiinition:

2.the use of knowledge and techniques derived from various sciences, as ballistics and medicine, in the investigation of crime

http://www.yourdictionary.com/forensic

In effect, we are dealing with a reconstruction of past events. Have the forces and conditions observed acting (upon the Earth and our solar system) today been the same throughout our planet's history? Is the present the key to understanding the past? Have the planets been on the same orbits and the solar system remained by and large unchanged since it was formed?
It is important to recognize that utilization of this approach in understanding our planet's recent past goes beyond interpretations of mythology. As an example, there are references from mythologies around the world, of either planets or gods hurling thunderbolts and causing extensive destruction of cities, raising or moving mountains, etc. Events that are often associated with floods, rains of fire and brimstone, disruptions of climate, and the preceived motion of the heavenly bodies. The Electric Universe's interpretations of modern astronomy and information gathered from space probes provide a scientific mechanism that have shown that these ancient accounts are much more than the product of the unreliable ramblings of the primitive imagination.

And why the choice of this term which seems to be simply bolstering a dodgy theory with psuedo-scienticfic terminology.

Why bother wasting your time with something that you consider pseudoscience?

If it's the consensus of the majority then, surely it's no better than 'Ask the audience'?
If a world wide consensus of opinion was taken upon whether Jesus Christ actually existed and the answer was a resounding 'Yes', would this make it so?

This makes no sense? Nobody here is proposing to bolster their argument by invoking consensus. On the contrary, planetary catastrophism (including Saturn theory) is outside the boundaries of consensus science.

The Saturn theory is an surely an extraordinary theory, requiring extraordinary evidence?
I'm willing to consider all evidence, but so far I've not seen anything to convince me.

Assuming that you have read the material, and if you are not convinced...well that is okay. One must keep an open mind, and perhaps having been exposed to the theory, then with some future supporting discovery, you may decide to revisit it.

I have to wonder why the Saturn theory does not put these events prior to human experience.
Thus avoiding the various interpretations that can be put upon mythological scenarios.

The events could not be prior to human experience if they are reported by a vehicle of human communications, ie myth.
What I would ask of you (a rhetorical question) is... would it make you feel more secure if such catastrophic events were removed in time....so as to be less threatening?

Nick

[daveycreatrix]

Hi Nick,

Assuming that you have read the material, and if you are not convinced...well that is okay. One must keep an open mind, and perhaps having been exposed to the theory, then with some future supporting discovery, you may decide to revisit it.

I like to think I have an open mind.
If you can point me in the direction of some compelling evidence, I'm willing to consider it.
Just some starting points you have found informative would be of use.
By the way I don't have a problem with catastrophes, they are the mill stone of human experience.
They happen all the time, and indeed are often the source of deeper understanding.
I can vouch for this having experienced two major house fires and the deaths of loved ones.
Davey

[daveycreatrix]

Hi Nick,
Also, returning to Siggy_G's first post.

David Talbot says that "the earliest astronomers insisted that the gods were planets".

Which earliest astronomers, said this?
And what was the nature of their insistence?
Again, I'm not seeking to be truculent, I just need some compelling evidence and David Talbot, and Dwardu Cardona I'm afraid haven’t done this for me yet.
Davey

[nick c]

hi Davey,

Which earliest astronomers, said this?
And what was the nature of their insistence?

I would think that he was referring primarily to Sumerian/Babylonian observers, who are generally regarded as the first astronomers. (Note that there was no practical difference between astrology and astronomy in the ancient world.) See my reply (the 2nd post on this thread) to SiggyG.

Nick

[daveycreatrix]

Hi Nick,
Yes, following your first post I have ordered a copy of 'Babylonian Star-lore: An Illustrated Guide to the Star-lore and Constellations of Ancient Babylonia' by Gavin White.
Should arrive any day now!
Your second reference was to Wallis Budge, I don't have a copy of this, though Swhwaller De Lubitz covers the 'Ankh' symbol in detail in 'Sacred Science' which I consider a more reliable interpretation.
Do you have any more sources you could recommend?
Davey

[daveycreatrix]

Hi Nick,
By the way there are 'lightbox' sight lines to Venus in 'Bryn Celli Ddu', in Wales.
The orbit of Venus can still be substantiated there today by these 'lightbox' sightlines, presumably the same as as it was when the monument was constructed in neolithic times. There are similar 'sightboxes' to Venus in other British ancient monuments, notably Maes Howe and New Grange in Ireland.
This at leads me to think that Venus was in its regular current orbit circa 4,000 to 2,000 BC?
Speculating upon this, where could it fit into the Venus as a comet theory?
Davey

[nick c]

hi Davey,
I would question the sight lines as pointing to Venus. How do we know to where or to what celestial object they were pointing? It is most likely an assumption of a modern researcher. I would also be interested in learning by what method those dates were established? my hunch is that it is greatly overestimated.
Venus presently, as an inner planet, never travels more than 48 degrees away from the Sun as viewed from Earth. It appears to move away from the Sun to 48 degrees than starts to move back toward the Sun, either preceeding the Sun as the morning star or following it as the evening star. I don't see how some sort of manmade line up on Earth can be "proof" that it points at Venus!
What we do have besides numerous references to Venus being a comet, are 21 years of observations by the Babylonians (called the "Venus Tablets" or the "tablets of Ammizaduga") of the planet Venus, in fact, the tablets are cut and dried observations of the length of invisibilities at inferior and superior conjunction. They are most often conventionally dated to around 700 bce. Researchers came upon the idea the tablets could be precisely dated by retrocalculating the positions of Venus until a match was obtained, these attempts were unsuccessful, requiring an unacceptable high percentage of observations to be attributed to "scribal error" in order to obtain a fit. Lynn Rose and Raymond Vaughn have written several articles on the subject, their analysis is that while the tablets describe Venus as an inner planet, either it and/or the Earth were on a different orbit than is observed today.
Rose and Vaughn's articles are not available on line, but here is a discussion (the author is a member of this forum) of the tablets:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/neocat/ammi.htm

The ancient sources depicting Venus as a comet or sporting a comet like tail are numerous and have been written of in catastrophic literature over and over again.

Here is but one example, of a uniformitarian researcher (who was unaware of the Velikovsky or catastrophism) puzzled by the Venus/comet association, only the 1st page is linked but it contains the relevant info:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1256726
Here is the enigma...
1. The Babylonian Ishtar/Venus, a female goddess, is depicted as having a beard
2. The word "beard" in Babylonian astronomy is a term referring to a cometary tail...the Babylonian name for comet translates as 'bearded star"
The anomaly of a female goddess displaying a beard is explained because the Babylonians are referring to Venus as a comet

Nick