tat tvam asi wrote:

Native wrote:Just as you don´t care how many times I write that I am recieving the Freethoughtnation Newsletters and read everything with great interests, you still say that I don´t.

Hold on now, you've diverted the subject from Murdocks books to the FTN news letters, which, are not Murdocks books. FTL was saying that you have not read her books and that it shows. It does show actually. Reading the news letters does not amount to reading the actual books. And the point is that if go ahead and read the books you might understand where Murdock is coming from...

For the time being, the only questionable issue that has come up regarding the works of Murdock, is that of the deities connected to the Milky Way.

It began with my post of Sun Nov 06, 2011 5:03 pm dealing with the question of comparisons between Hathor/Neith/Isis(Mary).

FTL then replied:

FTL99 wrote:(Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:58 pm) What you are bring up here assuming we don't know anything about is old news to Acharya. She discusses the Hathor connection to the milky way in her first book, Christ Conspiracy, page 97 from 1999. Acharya simply doesn't spend any time on milky way myths because I don't think she sees it as relevant to her work. What milky way myths have found their way into Christianity that have been verified & confirmed by reputable scholars?

- I´ve read the Christ Conspiracy here: books.google.com/books?id=KnIYRi3upbEC& ... mp;f=false - where Hathor is mentioned on:

Page 97 - quoted as being connected to the Milky Way.
Page 156 - quoted being connected to the Moon.

(Which is very interesting in itself. The qouted scholars obviously cannot agree on which celestial mytho-cosmological object the greatest goddess Hathor is connected to - even there is a huge mytho-cosmological difference betwen milky way creative forces compared to the more inferior lunar forces) (This also shows that there is a huge mythological confusion going on where the Milky Way half hemisphere crescent is scholarly interpreted to be a lunar crescent symbol - as I have stated before)

- I would not have any problems sticking strict to the Virgin Isis/Mary topic in this tread, if not for the very unpleasent and nit-picking personal comments from FTL also mudding up this tread up by mixing this tread with an old tread on Frethoughtnation Forum.

So: I´ve read the book in question and besides this, I think the solar astrotheology/mythology is very easy to understand as a mythological hypothesis - even it, in my opinion, has some logical explanation problems regarding connecting the solar deity to a certain globally row of seasonal and astrotheological rituals where the different hemisphere solar seasons are opposite each other.

If the solar hero is born at 25 th. of december on the northern hemisphere, he dies at the same time on the southern hemisphere. But I´m sure someone can link me to a logical explanation of this astrotheological paradox. Eventually by again accusing me for not having read a relevant book. . .

- With this comment I´ll hold my horses and leave it all to yourself - unless someone adresses me with further factual questions or the usual nit-picking comments.

Cheers Native

Native - thanks for the Hathor - Milky Way links, that is good.

I still don't see where the Egyptian creation myth saw the Primordial Mound as the Milky Way. That looks unlikely and speculative to my reading.

Robert Tulip wrote:Native - thanks for the Hathor - Milky Way links, that is good.

I still don't see where the Egyptian creation myth saw the Primordial Mound as the Milky Way. That looks unlikely and speculative to my reading.

Hello Robert,
I fully understand the difficulties in taking in the concept of how the ancient people grasped the mytho-cosmological knowledge of the Creation.

On the other hand, maybe it demands more training for me in order to launch my ideas better and clearer?

For my part it has taken me 35 years of mythological and cosmological ponderings to get where I am now.

- If you would like me to go into a deeper explaining here, I would like to do that.

In the mean time: Have you read my articles of Mythology and Cosmology here:

"The Milky Way Mythology and the Stories of Creation" - http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0065
And:
"New Solar and Galaxy Formation Knowledge" - http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0013

- These 2 articles can be read as a combination of knowledge as well as descriptions of the significant differencies between ancient and modern ideas/hypothesis and knowledge.

Cheers Native

Native, I read your first paper, and agree with FTL99's comments on it. You are forcing myth into a schema of your own devising.

The myth of Icarus shows that the idea of a chariot pulling the sun was widespread. See picture of Apollo below. You deny this.

Saturn marks the limit of the visible solar system. Its orbit of nearly thirty years, and Jupiter's orbit of twelve years, form the structure of time, with their combined orbit of 20 years forming the Mayan K'atun.

The Egyptian Geb and Nut separated by Shu symbolise the earth and stars separated by the air. Making this into a Milky Way myth is forced.

The Egyptians saw the constellation Argo (Noah's Ark) as a stellar boat. This constellation is not visible from Denmark. It has the same shape as the Osiris standing on a boat in your paper.

The 'wheels within wheels' from Ezekiel has a far simpler and more accurate interpretation - precession surrounds the year which surrounds the day. Your depiction of the Milky Way surrounding the wheel of the stars is not correct, because the Milky Way moves with the rest of the stars.

In the Bible, the tree of life is the zodiac, not the Milky Way.

I welcome your interest in these big topics, but as these questions indicate, your claims are highly speculative and look dubious.

Here is an ancient depiction of the Sun God Apollo.

Robert Tulip wrote:Native, I read your first paper, and agree with FTL99's comments on it. You are forcing myth into a schema of your own devising.

The myth of Icarus shows that the idea of a chariot pulling the sun was widespread. See picture of Apollo below. You deny this.

Saturn marks the limit of the visible solar system. Its orbit of nearly thirty years, and Jupiter's orbit of twelve years, form the structure of time, with their combined orbit of 20 years forming the Mayan K'atun.

The Egyptian Geb and Nut separated by Shu symbolise the earth and stars separated by the air. Making this into a Milky Way myth is forced.

The Egyptians saw the constellation Argo (Noah's Ark) as a stellar boat. This constellation is not visible from Denmark. It has the same shape as the Osiris standing on a boat in your paper.

The 'wheels within wheels' from Ezekiel has a far simpler and more accurate interpretation - precession surrounds the year which surrounds the day. Your depiction of the Milky Way surrounding the wheel of the stars is not correct, because the Milky Way moves with the rest of the stars.

In the Bible, the tree of life is the zodiac, not the Milky Way.

I welcome your interest in these big topics, but as these questions indicate, your claims are highly speculative and look dubious.

Here is an ancient depiction of the Sun God Apollo.

Robert,
I was really hoping to stay on the topic of the Primeval Mound. I maybe should have linked you to another Mytho-Cosmological article which is here: jcf.org/new/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3701& ... p;start=15 Page 2; Post subject: 01. Milky Way Mythology and further on.

I´ll only comment on some of your issues here.

1) The Icaros/Trundholm Wagon Myth: I don¨t deny the myth. But I totally refuse the consensus interpretation as being a totally unreflected and illogical mythological heritage.

Please tell me in your own words how anyone can depict an imagery of a horse pulling the sun over the daytime sky - and make a trustworthy and logical myth out of this scenario.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trundholm_sun_chariot - “Sun goddess is Sunna. Every day, Sól rode through the sky on her chariot, pulled by the two horses Arvak and Alsvid. The sun chariot has been interpreted as representing a Bronze Age predecessor to the goddess”.

You see? Here the Trundholm text talks of a female solar deity on her chariot and not the usually male Father Sun deity. So you cannot even compare these 2 chariots at all.

The Trundholm Wagon is still more likely to deal with Milky Way goddess as I claim, where the "solar goddess" represents the very light of the Milky Way centre - which is located on the female Milky Way figure on the southern hemisphere in the constellation of Sagittarius. A centre that mythologically is called by the female name of "The Cosmic Womb" as well as the Primeval Mound.

2) Goddess Nut is certainly connected to the Milky Way Myths, right? We can discuss whether Geb represents the Earth or the soil building up on the Primeval Mound. I think the latter is the rigt one. In such case it all can be logically connected to both the Milky Way mythology and to the Story of Creation, right? Google "goddess nut+milky way". Or just read here http://www.crystalinks.com/nute.html

3) Regarding the constellation of "Argo": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_Navis "Argo Navis is the only one of the 48 constellations listed by the 2nd century astronomer Ptolemy that is no longer officially recognised as a constellation.

- Have you any written or hieroglyphical evidence of claiming this supposedly 2nd century constellation for being a more than 2 thousand year old egyptian mythological constellation ship or the biblical Noah´s Ark ship?

4) Of course "the Milky Way seemingly moves with the rest of the stars". I cannot locate the actual problem out from this comment of yours.

5) If "In the Bible, the tree of life is the zodiac, not the Milky Way" - In which Garden of Eden-centre is then the Tree of Life located in the zodiac?

Can we maybe then now focus on the topic of the Primeval Mound?

Cheers Native

Native, you seem a bit confused for sure. The ancients saw the sun move across the sky all day. In those times movement was associated with chariot travel here on earth. So they mythologized the sun as being pulled across the sky, every day, by a mythological chariot ride across the sky. Whether the sun was personified as male or female, doesn't matter. In both cases the sun (whether viewed as male or female) was moving across the sky.

Now earlier than this the Egyptians used the analogy of the scarab beatle because it rolled along a ball of dung across the ground. So the sun was mythologized as rolled along through the sky by the scarab beatle. The chariot is just another edition to the old myth of the suns daily movement based on the same type of mythologizing analogy found in Egypt much earlier.

tat tvam asi wrote:Native, you seem a bit confused for sure. The ancients saw the sun move across the sky all day. In those times movement was associated with chariot travel here on earth. So they mythologized the sun as being pulled across the sky, every day, by a mythological chariot ride across the sky. Whether the sun was personified as male or female, doesn't matter. In both cases the sun (whether viewed as male or female) was moving across the sky.

Now earlier than this the Egyptians used the analogy of the scarab beatle because it rolled along a ball of dung across the ground. So the sun was mythologized as rolled along through the sky by the scarab beatle. The chariot is just another edition to the old myth of the suns daily movement based on the same type of mythologizing analogy found in Egypt much earlier.

tat tvam asi,

To cut straight to the point: I´ll bet you that the mythological Scarab Beatle represents the mythical “first upheaval of soil” on the (Ra) enlightened Primeval Mound in the creation story, not “a puller of the Sun”.

1) The Dung Beetle species was worshipped by the ancient Egyptians as an embodiment of the god Khepri.

2) In Egyptian mythology, Khepri (also spelled Khepera, Kheper, Chepri, Khepra) is the name of a major god.

3) Khepri was identified as the aspect of Ra which constitutes only the dawning sun (i.e. the sun when it comes into being).

AD: Now, Is it the sun that comes into being in this mythical telling? Or is it “the soil on the (Ra) enlightened Primeval Mound that comes into being”?

Note especially the sentence in § 3: “. . . constitutes only the dawning sun”. Only the dawning – nothing else! Except from the fact that it is not “the sun”, but the first Ra light of/on the Primeval Mound.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogdoad we have the telling of the elementary deities who are immanent present before the story of the physically creation begins.

“The eight deities were arranged in four female-male pairs: Naunet and Nu, Amaunet and Amun, Kauket and Kuk, Hauhet and Huh. The females were associated with snakes and the males were associated with frogs. Apart from their gender, there was little to distinguish the female goddess from the male god in a pair; indeed, the names of the females are merely the female forms of the male name and vice versa. Essentially, each pair represents the female and male aspect of one of four concepts, namely the primordial waters (Naunet and Nu), air or invisibility (Amunet and Amun), darkness (Kauket and Kuk), and eternity or infinite space (Hauhet and Huh).

Together the four concepts represent the primal, fundamental state of the beginning, they are what always were. In the myth, however, their interaction ultimately proved to be unbalanced resulting in the arising of a new entity.

When the entity opened, it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside. After a long interval of rest, Ra, together with the other deities, created all other things”.

AD: After a certain amount of interaction between the 4 (8) elements of Ogdoad, the physically creation first shows a great fiery light, Ra, as a result of swirling and merging elements. In this process everything is created, including the first soil that becomes land i.e. planets later on.

The Dung Beetle, Khepri God, is connected to Ra in the sense that it represents the first soil/land that is created, is pushed up, and this creates the firm land that again becomes the Primeval Mound. In this sense the Dung Beetle also allegorical represents the eternal creation.

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_ ... tion_myths

The sun (Read: Ra, The First Light on the Primeval Mound – Native) was also closely associated with creation, and it was said to have first risen from the mound, as the general sun-god Ra or as the god Khepri, who represented the newly-risen sun (Read: Ra, The First Light on the Primeval Mound – Native). There were many versions of the sun's emergence, (Read: Ra, The First Light on the Primeval Mound – Native) and it was said to have emerged directly from the mound or from a lotus flower that grew from the mound, in the form of a heron, falcon, scarab beetle, or human child.

Another common element of Egyptian cosmogonies is the familiar figure of the cosmic egg, a substitute for the primeval waters or the primeval mound. One variant of the cosmic egg version teaches that the sun god, (Read: Ra, The First Light on the Primeval Mound – Native) as primeval power, emerged from the primeval mound, which itself stood in the chaos of the primeval sea.

AD: Here it all comes together: The Dung Beetle represents the First Land on the Primeval Mound. In this sense the Beetle is connected to the First Light and Primeval Power of Ra on this Mound which mythologically also is connected to the mytheme of the Cosmic Egg from where everything comes into physically being.

Conclusion: The Dung Beetle has nothing directly to do with our Sun at all. The Beetle itself represents the mytheme of “soil upheaval” and creation of the Primeval Mound and land/planets as such. And Ra have nothing directly to do with our sun either. Ra cannot possibly and mytho-logically have anything directly to do with the sun because the solar system itself was not even created in this stage of the story of creation.

But of course both Ra and the Dung Beetle have something indirectly to do with the further creation out from the Primeval Mound because everything in our Milky Way is created out from this centre of creation, biblically called the Garden of Eden. Even our solar system was clearly created out of the Milky Way centre because it is obviously an orbiting part of the Milky Way rotation.

The confusion of Light
- In the scholarly interpretation, this light mytheme of Ra = The First Light, is confused because the scholars for some reason or another ignores/fails to connect the right mythological telling with the right cosmological object.

Knowing nothing or very little of the Milky Way creation, some scholars confuse the primary Milky Way First Light of the Primordial Mound with the secondary light of the Sun which of course gives a mythological and cosmological distorted telling that lacks logics.

So tat tvam asi: What do you bet?

NB: For a more specific and alternative explanation of the creation read here:
jcf.org/new/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3701& ... p;start=15
Post subject: 01. Milky Way Mythology; Post subject: 02. Milky Way Myth Basics; (Post subject: 03. Interpreting Deity Myths); Post subject: 04. Basically Symbols of Creation.

Cheers Native

The dung beatle rolls up a sphere. That's the main concern. The dawning sun is of course the sun coming up at dawn. So you have this sphere rolling beatle associated with the dawning spherical sun which comes up and moves across the sky all day. It's pretty straight forward.

But on a side note, The light of the Milky Way is a strong candidate for the first light in Genesis. It isn't the sun, moon, or stars to the ancient eye, but rather something different. It's before the sun, moon, and stars if the light of the first day refers to the Milky Way. And could possibly be left over from earlier creation myths. I don't doubt that the Milky Way plays a role in creation mythology, it's just errant to try and force fit it into places where it doesn't belong for the sake of a pet theory.

tat tvam asi wrote:The dung beatle rolls up a sphere. That's the main concern. The dawning sun is of course the sun coming up at dawn. So you have this sphere rolling beatle associated with the dawning spherical sun which comes up and moves across the sky all day. It's pretty straight forward.

But on a side note, The light of the Milky Way is a strong candidate for the first light in Genesis. It isn't the sun, moon, or stars to the ancient eye, but rather something different. It's before the sun, moon, and stars if the light of the first day refers to the Milky Way. And could possibly be left over from earlier creation myths. I don't doubt that the Milky Way plays a role in creation mythology, it's just errant to try and force fit it into places where it doesn't belong for the sake of a pet theory.

- As you correctly wrote: "It's before the sun, moon, and stars if the light of the first day refers to the Milky Way"

If? – I think for sure.

Therefore: The mythological heritage of “rolling the sun” in this connection and sentence, is overall and pretty straight forward wrong, inclusive the popular Beetle-rolling-the sun-over-the-sky-heritage.

Quote: “I don't doubt that the Milky Way plays a role in creation mythology, it's just errant to try and force fit it into places where it doesn't belong for the sake of a pet theory”.

AD: Thanks for your Milky Way open-mindedness in general. If you mean that I have a “pet-theory”, I agree – but don´t judge it errant or irrelevant just because it isn´t a pet idea of your own, or doesn´t fit into the popular consensus mythologically understanding, right?

Cheers Native

Anyone following along should watch the brief lecture on Egyptian mythology for clarification.

The problem is that even if we look at the sun having been created out of, or, by the milky way, this doesn't even change the notion of the sun being rolled along. It's just a case of the sun coming from the milky way center and then being rolled along through the sky each day thereafter by the scarab beatle.

You seem to be doing what I see on these alien seeding theory shows on the History Channel and such. They will twist and bend certain myths that clearly about the sun, or precession, in favor of trying to show evidence of alien space craft and what not. And to anyone who doesn't know better, it might seem like they have a point. But the further you look into it the point they were trying to make begins to dissolve.

The Milky Way is a part of astrotheological cosmology, but as Murdock said it's part of a sub level of status. It doesn't make the plants grow, isn't responsible for the perpetuation of life, it doesn't play any major roll in daily life. It's use is basically for a point of reference such as in precession myth and such. In Revelation it's addressed to the Great Year. It's one of the markers in the sky for observing the earth's tilted axis. And it's probably the "light" that the ancients thought was around before the sun, moon, and stars such as in Genesis. But even in that case it's more than obvious that the first light (if referring to the milky way) takes a second seat to the sun and moon after the 4th day of creation. Then the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night. No matter which way you spin it the milky ways myths simply do not trump the solar and lunar myths. And you really are trying too hard to force fit the milky way into solar and lunar mythology.