Author Topic: MYTHS  (Read 273 times)

Admin

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 222
    • View Profile
MYTHS
« on: November 26, 2019, 12:05:56 pm »
On Saturn and the Flood (Immanuel Velikovsky)
http://rogerswebsite.com/ah/OnSaturnandtheFlood.pdf

The Jupiter Myth
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17492
by kauranos » Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:19 pm
Hullo from newbie. John.
The Greek Antikythera mechanism for astronomy is a fact. The eclipse prediction calendar, a dial on the back of the mechanism includes a solar eclipse that happened May 12, 205 B.C. It used Babylonian maths not Greek trigonometry._ Smithsonian. By way of speculation: Egypt may have had telescopes. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/3749/0000/Remarkable-lenses-and-eye-units-in-statues-from-the-Egyptian/10.1117/12.354722.short?SSO=1
The implications for the identification of glass production sites, for the organisation of trade and for the supply of natron within and outside Egypt are discussed in the light of Pliny’s accounts.  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-016-0447-4

by kauranos » Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:22 am
Antikythera may have been motivated ( not by DC) by Egypt's alleged telescopes which hypothetically were >20x mag.  The intense visible plumes of Io and Jupiter's corona may be what Pliny was on about. The eye of Horus , the red spot of Jupiter ?

Re: Ancient Technologies
by JP Michael » Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:45 pm
@John
The Antikythera mechanism may very well have accurately predicted eclipses and the like, but its apparent dating between 200 BCE and the shipwreck, 70-60 BCE, implies that it was utilised to observe the modern sky. It's bearing or usefulness regarding questions on the wild heavens of the recent past thus becomes suspect.
_It neither surprises me that Galileo Galilee observed electrical interaction between Jupiter and Io. Volcanism is an electrical phenomenon and to be expected on that moon, being as close as it is to the ex-brown dwarf star Jupiter. It may be that Jupiter (and Saturn, being the other prominent ex-star in our solar system) is still siphoning a small measure of electrical current from the galactic filament that is powering our sun, thus the resulting outbursts of volcanism on Io which is apparently unrelated to CMEs from the sun. That is a separate study in and of itself and I am not qualified to comment further. This is just an idea floating in my mind about Io's volcanism.
_Your quotation of Pliny is interesting, though, that Pliny knew to differentiate between terrestrial lightning and Jupiter's past interplanetary arc-plasma discharges. I think it is Homer's Illiad that said Zeus blasted Aphrodite (the moon) in the chest for attempting to interfere in Pallas-Athene's (Venus) celestial tiff with Ares (Mars). Kind of explains why our moon is a ghostly, scarred, electrically cratered and chasmed entity if that was indeed how the scene unfolded in the recent past.
_Mars' Olympus Mons and Valles Marineris might also be further evidence of direct contact between the Red Planet and Jupiter in the past. Ever since reading about the possibility of iron oxide (rusty, red dust) being a central component to Jupiter's Great Red Spot, it made me wonder if that was the precise location from which the arc of plasma shot forth from Jupiter to Mars in the past and electrically 'hoovered' vast quantities of magneto-charged Fe2O3 or Fe3O4 particulate from the Martian surface which has remained in that spiralling synchrotron of a storm ever since. Velikovsky's supposition of fights with Venus and/or Earth with Mars must also be considered in the overall reconstruction.
_I also disagree with the conclusion that the ancients required telescopes to perceive Jupiter's past polar plasma plumes. You are maintaining the false uniformitarian assumption that their skies were the same as our skies, a manifestly false a-priori. If this assumption were true, then you would be correct to suppose the ancients required telescopes to perceive Jupiter and its various phenomenon. There is significant evidence to the contrary, however:
_Jupiter
1. Was much closer to the Earth in the past, so close that ancient art depicts Jupiter's patterns of equatorial banding.1 This was done without the use of telescopy.
2. Has an immense plasmasheath (jovesphere? as opposed to our sun's heliosphere) of its own. If you can locate Jupiter in the night sky tonight, place your hand over it and that is the approximate size of Jupiter's plasmasheath from a terrestrial perspective. If this plasmasheath had polar-oriented glow-mode tails (plasma plumes) on it, they would be visible from earth today without any need for a telescope. In fact, these plumes might somewhat resemble a squashed, thinner version of the Bali Thunderbolt image you posted above. How much more visible, then, would they have been in the past when Jupiter was much closer to the Earth?
_[1]I found it incredibly difficult to source the images of Jupiter's bands in ancient art. The best I could do was to screencap The Juptier Myth, part 2 @09:08. I do not know where Jno Cook sourced these ancient drawings from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP_f_BZuqss&feature=youtu.be&t=548
(at 9:08 / 24:06)

… by Lloyd » Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:50 pm
I started a thread on my website on theories at http://futureschool.boards.net/thread/22/theories . Below is how I'm starting it out. I may modify it eventually. If anyone has info or suggestions for collaboration etc, feel free to reply. I need to add one or more questions re Ancient Tech.
_CATASTROPHIST THEORIES

… by Lloyd » Fri Nov 22, 2019 12:19 pm
John, kauranos, you should provide references, but I agree that those are good evidence. My impression is that there was very advanced civilization over 4,000 years ago, which produced the ancient maps shortly after the greatest cataclysms, but that later civilization lost a lot of tech, until the Renaissance.

by kauranos » Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:34 am
Lloyd,
Here we go: …

by Lloyd » Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:01 pm
Thanks, John. Good job with listing your sources there (or I assume so, since I can't check them out easily). What do you think of the ancient maps that indicate that there was advanced tech much earlier, at the time of the Great Flood and other cataclysms, that allowed people then to make accurate maps before, during and after the ice sheets formed? Have you studied any of that?

Catastrophic Modelling Site
Sent: Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:15 pm
From: JP Michael
To: Lloyd 
Hi Lloyd,
_I can help fill in some of the Creationist materials/questions if you require. I've been following many of the arguments of Oard/Baumgartner (to which I would also add Andrew Snelling and Steve Austin) and their RATE Project and Runaway Subduction catastrophist models for the last ~15 years.
_As far as I am aware, they utterly resent and abhor any and all theories that invoke celestial or planetary origins of terrestrial catastrophism. Their a-priori reticence is clearly crystalised in the creationist Genesis commentary of Dr. Jonathan Sarfati:
_“Bible based flood models should be deep-first, not heaven first... I accept as legitimate only those models that follow Scripture in teaching that the Flood began with a disturbance in the ocean, and reject those that have a first cause in the sky.” (The Genesis Account, p. 530)
_That this is a catastrophic error in current creationist thinking is manifest and I am currently compiling evidence to collate into a book to specfically address this untenable uniformitarian assumption regarding the skies of the ancient past.
_Let me know if you need anything. Many hands makes light work, afterall!
_Regards,
JP.

Sent: Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:59 am
From: Lloyd
To: JP Michael 
Hi JP. Be glad to work with you. Many Creationists are likely to remain disinterested in mythology, since they tend to believe that the Bible is God's word while other myths are man's word. Mythology shows that the "Great Deep" referred to the sky, not the oceans, but the Creationists seem unlikely to consider that possibility. I haven't looked into what the original Hebrew terms were for the "Fountains of the Great Deep", have you? Maybe that would have some good clues. Do you use the BlueLetterBible.org site? I used it some years ago for a while.

Sent: Fri Nov 22, 2019 7:40 pm
From: JP Michael
To: Lloyd 
Hi Lloyd,
_I quite agree that there is resistance to utilise mythological sources as reliable history amongst Creationists. As a creationist myself, this is one of the barriers I've had to overcome in my own thinking and it was not easy.
_Whilst I won't renege on my commitment to the Scriptures as the Living God's authoritative word, I believe there are many portions of it, particularly early portions, that have been routinely misinterpreted due to uniformitarian cosmology (let alone uniformitarian geology, but creationists are usually decent with catastrophist geology). For example, Genesis 1:14 says there were two 'great lights' in the ancient sky. These lights are never identified as the sun and the moon. That is an interpretation foistered on the text from observations of the current sky by all past and present Biblical interpreters.
_I have training in Biblical languages so I can actually comment further here. Mention of the 'sun' (shamash) does not occur until Gen 15:12, and the moon (yareach) until Gen 37:9, and in both cases translating them "Saturn" and "Crescent" (following David Talbott's The Saturn Myth, pp.276-280) respectively does little violence to the text, but much violence to the imposition of the modern sky upon the ancients'. Gen 15:12 is especially interesting, because the verb used there, also in 15:17, bo, means to come or come out, or emerge. It literally says in v.12, "It came to pass as shamash (Saturn) was emerging..." and v.17, "When shamash had emerged...". This is exactly in line with Talbott's thesis that ancient Saturn, being fixed in its place at the polar North as it was, "came out/appeared/emerged" at night and "went back/disappeared" during the daytime. A similar phenomenon exists today: compare the brightness of the moon seen during the day, and then compare it to the night (a phenomenon best noticed when moonrise occurs in the hours before sunset so one may watch the moon's 'emerging' brightness). The moon always appears brighter at night, it "comes out" (in brightness) at night, the same way Polestar Saturn did as recorded accurately and faithfully in Genesis 15.
_Notice English translations say, "When the sun had set," because they're forcing the modern sky on Abraham's and changing the meaning of bo from come (appear) to set (go, disappear) simply because they've started with a faulty assumption about the ancient sky and have no recourse but to force interpretations of the modern sky back on the ancient text. I agree wholeheartedly with Talbott that the Hebrew word shamash came to be used to describe the current sun after the disappearance of Saturn from the sky, hence the perpetual confusion of the two. I surmise, with Velikovsky, that that departure occurred at the time of the Exodus. Thus, I believe Abraham and Joseph very much witnessed Saturn in their ancient sky, not our current sun. All references to shamash after the Exodus of the Hebrews refer to the current sun, not Saturn.
_I think that the deep (Hebrew: tehom; Greek abysos) of Gen 1:2 is space, as you say. This same word is used of the fountains of the great deep in Gen 7:11 speaking of the flood (mayanot tehom rabbah: literally gushing fountains of the great deep). I find it significant that the term 'gushing fountains' is etymogically related to the Hebrew word for eye (ayin), sharing exactly the same root. I believe that the Hebrew language preserves in much of its etymology/roots and word associations fragments of memory of the ancient Saturnian configuration. Why are the words for 'spring' and 'eye' the same (ayin)? Mayanah, the singular form of mayanot of Gen 7:11, is a causative form of the same root: springs caused to gush, or fountains. What have these to do with eyes? I believe the association is because the eye, with its fountain of water (tears), was reminiscent to the Eye of Heaven configuration, with its fountains of waters that destroyed the world in the Deluge.
_In terms of resources, I find Jeff Benner's Ancient Hebrew Lexicon one of the best etymological resources available for such studies. Not only does he break down each word in its original ancient Hebrew root, he gives the most mechanical/concrete translations for them. Abstract thought is non-existent in ancient Hebrew and all Hebrew words have concrete meanings. The word tehom (#8415) is actually derived from a family of similar words related to the verb hom, roaring, wild and tumultuous, loud noise, destruction. Even the 'window' in 7:11 (arubbah, #699) is a chimney by which smoke can exit a place. The 'chimneys of heaven' sounds awfully similar to a column of interplanetary plasma carrying an abundance of water from Saturn to Earth at the time of the Deluge. Notice that the word for 'window' (chimney) in Gen 7:11 & 8:2 is a different word to the 'window' Noah opened in the ark (chalon, Gen 8:6, #2474, a word that has to do with the twisting, or boring, of an implement to make a hole in something).
_I also use E-Sword as a personal Bible app on my laptop (iPhone edition also available) simply because it is free (although I do donate) and it has all the essential resources I need to undertake my Biblical studies. I also do not need to depend on a website to make notes. Additional resources, such as specialist grammars, lexicon of the Septuagint, Louw-Nida's Semantic Lexicon for the New Testament, and so-on, I have in my personal library or via various smartphone apps.
_I'm not even scratching the surface when it comes to the preservation of concepts of the ancient sky preserved down the millenia in the Hebrew language. The ancient Hebrew letters themselves originate from an assortment of celestial imagery, both of the Saturnian configuration and also arc-mode plasmas that were all present in the sky at the time, but that is another thesis I am currently working on in my very limited free time and may, in a few years, find the light of day in a printed book.
_Sorry for this essay, but it feels good to talk about such things with someone who understands the issues at hand rather than dismissing them without critical analysis like most of the theologians and creationists I talk to.
_Cheers,
JP.

Sent: Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:18 pm
From: Lloyd
To: JP Michael 
Hi JP. What does JP stand for? It's fun talking to you too.
...
I learned from http://hisholychurch.org/ that there are a lot of different meanings for each word in Hebrew. But I haven't studied Hebrew or Biblical Greek etc in detail, as you apparently have. What you have stated about some Hebrew words is very interesting and I'm sure some of the Thunderbolts team would be interested in discussing or collaborating with you, if you like. I worked with the team a little about ten years ago, but not a lot. I mostly just write independently on their Forum. I met Charles Chandler there in about 2011 and find his work on the electric universe to be far superior to that of Thornhill or Don Scott et al. He was developing his model at that time and has completed it pretty thoroughly since about 2014, though he continues to improve it. I tried to get the Thunderbolts people to have a friendly debate with Charles to improve the electric universe model, but they weren't interested. So I lost some respect for them. Charles' model is at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031
_Mike Fischer is somewhat of a Creationist, I think, but is open to other models. He has an excellent website at http://NewGeology.us where he shows that the continents were formed when a supercontinent was struck by a large asteroid that split it up, causing rapid continental drift a few thousand years ago. John Baumgartner's article on Noah's Flood is also excellent IMO, but his explanation of continental drift is very inferior to Mike Fischer's. John's model has Earth's entire mantle churning to move the continents apart, but Mike's has just the crust moving, i.e. sliding, over the Moho layer in the crust.
_I'd like to share a lot of our discussion on the forum. Would you like me to start a new thread for a discussion there? Maybe it should be on the comparison of catastrophist models, like I started discussing on the Ancient Technologies thread. Maybe we can write a book together, or we can help each other write separate books.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter