tat tvam asi wrote: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.

tat tvam asi wrote:Native, I still think that you're not getting it. AD 1
It doesn't matter if the sun traces back to an emergence from the galactic center, where it comes from is not the issue. The issue is that the ancients knew that the power and energy of the sun sustained life on earth, not the galactic center. If the sun were removed and the galactic center remained, life would be doomed on earth. AD 2
The sun is not meant for merely short term cycles either, it's also the basis of the Great Year of the precession of the equinoxes and the vast Vedic Yuga cycles of time which span endless ranges of long counting. AD 3
As Robert said, the zodiac and the galactic center play a role in myth that never has been entirely forgotten. It's still known now and has been known.
But the creation myth aspect certainly doesn't get a lot of attention though, certainly not in Genesis as we're discussing. If this is correct, and it probably is, then Judeo-Christianity forgot about the galactic center in it's own mythology. But that's just tied up in the usual denial of it's pagan roots. But it wasn't entirely forgotten because the writer(s) of Revelation were careful to make reference to it in esoteric ways. Obviously some people were still aware of it judging by what we see in Revelation. AD 4
I responded to you at JCF in the thread you linked me to, but I'll say it here as well. If we credit the light of the first day in Genesis to the light of the milky way, before the sun, moon, and stars were "made" ( lol !!! ), then the creation starts with the heavens (space) and the earth. The earth doesn't come out of the galactic center, rather the galactic center of the milky way fires up after the earth is created. AD 5
Then there is evening and morning, the first day. The day starts off dark and then light enters leading to the Jewish recognition of the day starting at sundown as in the Sabbath Day and such. And then the sun, moon, and stars take over to rule the night and day. So the milky way isn't the focus any more. It was short lived. AD 6
The solar chariots and Scarab Beatle don't really seem to fit milky way mythology. It really does look like too much of a force fit. I understand that you're excited because you've found out that the milky way played a role and was forgotten by some or most, and want to proclaim it to the world. I think that there are truths in some of this. AD 7
But as FTL was saying, it's best to stick to what can be demonstrated clearly. It's best to call speculation as it is and not try to pass it off as hard fact prematurely. AD 8

Robert Tulip wrote:Native, I still think that you are seeing Milky Way myths where it looks most unlikely that was the ancient intent. AD 1

Although this thread is not about the Milky Way, it is reasonable to discuss it here in view of the apparent connection between Hathor, the cow goddess who preceded Isis, and the Milky Way.

The Milky Way was used in Plato's Timaeus as a symbol of eternity and identity, because it always appears exactly the same and never moves like the sun and planets, which are therefore the symbol of change and difference. This ontology of the same and the different, the eternal and the temporal, identity and change, is at the basis of Plato's cosmology. I discuss it at some length at http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... =16&t=3320 especially regarding how the Chi Rho cross of Christian symbolism, mentioned above, appears to be based in observation of the Milky Way and the zodiac. Interestingly, this conflicts with the prevalent interpretation which replaces the zodiac with the celestial equator. This prevalent view seems to be based on a widespread desire to eliminate any mention of the zodiac because of its astrological natural association, even though the link with the celestial equator makes no sense at all in terms of observation. But then Christians were never very good at observing.