• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
The fine thing about modern cosmological science is that they´ve discovered the Sagittarius A center which defines the precise center with all kind of telescopes and with all kinds of different light filters.
Correct.
They found the location of the galactic centre. But only through filters for more powerful optical telescopes and because of the radio source from Sagittarius A, from radio telescopes.
I´ve seen an animation of this center and how stars are moving around this center.

The direct observation of Sagittarius A and orbiting stars is a direct and blatant contradiction of "heavy/massive black holes/objects" assumption in galactic centers.

Modern cosmology has come a long way via their instrumental observations, but modern cosmologists and astrophysicists have little clues of what is going on regarding the formational processes in galaxies.
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Subject: Ancient understanding of the Creation.

Modern Cosmology states our Solar System to be 4.6 bill years old and the Milky Way galaxy to be 12.6 bill years old. Obviously, our Solar System is not the first to be formed in the Milky Way galaxy. This is important to focus on in order to understand the mythical description.

The scholarly and popular interpretation of the following creation story has it´s focus on the Sun and a god which is named Re or Ra, who is the first entity be created in the Egyptian creation story. This deity is also closely and complexly connected to the Milky Way goddess Hathor.

The BIG question is then whether Re/Ra represent the Sun at daytime or another celestial light at nighttime. One cannot observe BOTH objects at the same time, so either this solar Re/Ra idea is false, or Re/Ra points toward another another "kind of Light".

Milky Way South. Goddess Figure.jpg

Star Atlas. Southern Hemisphere. The galactic center is located in the middle of the thick structure to the left. (The original color is faint grey/white)

mælkevejen.003.MK.jpg

Egyptian Goddess Hathor/Nut

The Ogdoad Creation Myth - Ogdoad - (Three Versions)

In Egyptian mythology, the Ogdoad are the eight deities worshipped in Hermopolis. The gods of the Ogdoad were mostly seen as humans with their animals' heads, or just depicted as snakes and frogs. They were arranged in four male-female pairs, with the males associated with frogs, and the females with snakes. The Egyptians believed that #1) before the world was formed, there was a watery mass of dark, directionless chaos. In this chaos lived the Ogdoad of Khmunu (Hermopolis), four frog gods and four snake goddesses of chaos.

These deities were Nun and Naunet (water), Amun and Amaunet (invisibility), Heh and Hauhet (infinity) and Kek and Kauket (darkness).

The chaos existed without the light, and thus Kek and Kauket came to represent this darkness. They also symbolized obscurity, the kind of obscurity that went with darkness, and night.

The Ogdoad were the original great gods of Iunu (On, Heliopolis) where they were thought to have helped with creation, then died and retired to the land of the dead where #2) they continued to make the Nile flow and the sun rise every day.

My comments:
1: This is a common introduction in many cultural stories of creation.
2: The Nile here is NOT the geographical Nile, but the mythical celestial "Heavenly River". the Milky Way.

Creation Myth
Together the four concepts represent the primal fundamental state of the beginning, #1) they are what always was. In the myth, however, #2) their interaction ultimately proved to be unbalanced, resulting in #3) the arising of a new entity. When the entity opened, #4) it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside. After a long interval of rest, #5) Ra, together with the other gods, created all other things. There are two main variations on the nature of the entity containing Ra.

My comments:
1: This is a statement of an eternal World.
2: This is just a description of what happens when the chaotic "Primordial Waters". i.e. the cosmic clouds of gas and dust, are set in motion.
3: This entity represents the modern term of the galactic hole, around which everything orbits.
4: Re/Ra is the first "Fiery Light to be created.
5: Re/Ra, as the Sun, have of course not created "all other things" together with "the other gods".
-------------------
Egg Variant
#1) The original version of the myth has the entity arising from the (primordial) waters after the interaction as a mound of dirt, the Milky Way, which was deified as Hathor.


In the myth an egg was laid upon this mound by a celestial bird. The egg contained Ra. In the original version of this variant, the egg is laid by a cosmic goose #2) (it is not explained where the goose originates). However, after the rise of the cult of Thoth, the egg was said to have been a gift from Thoth, and laid by an Ibis, the bird with which he was associated.

My comments:
1: This "first mound of dirt" is also a common description in several myths of creation. In the Biblical example, this is just called "earth", meaning "soil" (which has confused scholars to think of a "two times created Earth in the biblical story.) In this creation variant, the first entity is located on the Milky Way central mound, where the very contours of the Milky Way is represented by goddess Hathor as illustrated above.

2:The bird and goose is just an earlier variant of imaging the Milky Way contours and the Egg is just a nice way to illustrate the (cyclic) creation in the Milky Way.

In this variant it is without any doubts that Re/Ra is the first Light to be created in the Milky Way center with the direct connection to the Milky Way goddess Hathor.

All in all, this Egyptian creation story deals with the creation/formation of the Milky Way galaxy and all what´s known in the ancient world perception.

-------------------------
Lotus Variant
Later, when Atum had become assimilated into Ra as Atum-Ra, the belief that Atum #1) emerged from a (blue) lotus bud, in the Ennead cosmogeny, was adopted and attached to Ra. The lotus was said to have arisen from the waters after the explosive interaction as a bud, which floated on the surface, and slowly opened its petals to reveal the beetle, Khepri, inside. #2) Khepri, an aspect of Ra representing the rising sun, immediately turns into a weeping boy - Nefertum (young Atum), whose tears form the creatures of the earth.

My comment:
1: This is also a common cultural/mythical description of the unfolding of the creation
2: Anyone who are familiar with the Egyptian symbolism, knows that Khepri is a symbol of the cyclical creation itself and not representing the Sun - even that one can make a somewhat similar allegory with the Sun. But this creation story deals with the central part of the Milky Way and NOT with the Sun.
------------------------
My conclusions:
Re/Ra don´t represent the Sun but the lighter and central part of the Milky Way. This false interpretation have been repeated for centuries in books and this false information is also repeated today in diverse encyclopedia.

The Re/Ra = Sun interpretation is nonsense in all accounts since the Sun/Solar System isn´t the first to be created in the center in these variants of creation stories, which obviously deals with the Milky Way.

Re/Ra = Popularly assumed to represent the Sun, is simply fake news. Re/Ra = The central lighter part of the Milky Way
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
That image is of Nut, not of Hathor.
If you were familiar with the myth of Nut and Hathor, you would know that they both represent the Milky Way.
But you are excused since to you, myths are just myths without any astronomical implications at all.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Native said:
The fine thing about modern cosmological science is that they´ve discovered the Sagittarius A center which defines the precise center with all kind of telescopes and with all kinds of different light filters.

I´ve seen an animation of this center and how stars are moving around this center.

The direct observation of Sagittarius A and orbiting stars is a direct and blatant contradiction of "heavy/massive black holes/objects" assumption in galactic centers.


What is the contradiction? Be clear.

We know there is a supermassive object there that stars close by orbit. It is small enough that the only possibility is a black hole.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Big Bang Devils Advocates . . .
Scientific anomalies are very entertaining indeed and an important tool in order to get a theory right.

The Great Attractor is an apparent gravitational anomaly in intergalactic space at the center of the local Laniakea Supercluster, in which the Milky Way is located, in the so-called Zone of Avoidance that is notoriously difficult to observe in visible wavelengths due to the obscuring effects of our own galactic plane.[1] This anomaly suggests a localized concentration of mass thousands of times more massive than the Milky Way.

The Shapley Supercluster or Shapley Concentration (SCl 124) is the largest concentration of galaxies in our nearby universe that forms a gravitationally interacting unit, thereby pulling itself together instead of expanding with the universe. It appears as a striking overdensity in the distribution of galaxies in the constellation of Centaurus. It is 650 million light years away (z=0.046).
--------------------
So a local attraction all of a sudden apparently overcome the overall idea of an expanding Universe!? "It appears as a striking overdensity . . ".

"Overdensity"? So a direct contradiction of the Big Bang expansion is just "an overdensity"? (Well, then an extra strong "dark matter" is needed in this location, I guess).



Why do you think that is a contradiction to the BB expansion?

Besides this obvious contradiction of Big Bang, the uneven distribution of galaxies in the observable Universe is in itself also a kind of contradiction of the Big Bang idea.

Not really, no, it isn't. In fact, everyone understands that things aren't perfectly uniform. And that has been incorporated into the models.

And the worst embedded contradiction is of course the sudden added extra velocity in the assumed expanding Universe - which obviously must derive from a false measuring method of distances in the Universe.

Or a non-zero value for the cosmological constant.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
If you were familiar with the myth of Nut and Hathor, you would know that they both represent the Milky Way.
But you are excused since to you, myths are just myths without any astronomical implications at all.
I know it is image of Nut, because her father Shu is holding up underneath her, and her brother Geb is lying or reclining on his back.

This is a very common image of Nut, Geb and Shu.

If the same image of a woman with stars painted on her body without Shu and Geb, then I could agree with you that it might be Hathor.

In the Book of Celestial Cow, the first part of the story narrated that Hathor was the Eye of Re, that turned into the lioness as Sekhmet, who then began killing the rebellious humans (Re was an earthly ruler of gods and men) and devoured them. Re prevented further destruction of mankind, by getting drunk on red-dyed beer, so that Sekhmet transformed into beautiful woman Hathor.

The second part of the narrative involved Re ascension to the heaven, by Nun and Shu ordering Nut, not Hathor, to transform herself into a cow. With Re mounted on back, Nut (cow) began flying up, but the higher she got, her legs would began to tremble, so her father Shu assisted her ascension by holding her up beneath her.

There have been numbers of stories in which the Eye of Re is one of any number of goddesses, such as Hathor, Tefnut, Sekhmet (lioness), Mut (vulture), Bastet (lioness, cat), Wadjet (serpent).

One of the reason I think Hathor is a sun goddess, is that she has sun disk on her head, the same sun disk associated with the lioness-headed goddess Sekhmet. BUT the other reason, is that one Eye of Re is common associated with the Sun, while the other Eye might be the moon.

That is Hathor’s connection to the Sun, Native, because the Eye of Re is a commonly connection to the goddess and to the Sun.

In a different myth concerning the Eye of Re, the goddess was Tefnut, who abandoned Re, and he became sightless and the sun and light vanished, leaving him in darkness. Thoth and Shu found her (in the form of lioness) in Nubia (Sudan), killing Nubians and devouring them. Thoth persuaded Tefnut to return to her father, and therefore the Sun and sunlight returned.

The Eye of Re is Re’s sun disk, and that is also what connect Re himself to the Sun.

Sorry, Native, but there are many myths, and they often connect Re and the Eye of Re to the sun, not to the Milky Way.

Plus in various spellings of Re’s name, in hieroglyphs, the seated falcon-headed god with sun disk on head, plus the symbol of the Sun, a circle with a dot in the middle, are both representatives of the Sun, not the Milky Way’s galactic centre.

Your argument that connect Re to the central light of the Milky Way is rather weak, and really only dependent on your equally interpretations of Egyptian myths.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
In term of astronomy, without any technology to observe the night sky, hence the naked eye, therefore people in prehistoric and ancient times as well as modern time, people would only see a very small portion of the Milky Way.

No one could see the Milky Way’s centre. And the only portion they would and could see, is part of the Sagittarius spiral arm.

What I keep telling you is that what people really see with the naked eye, are stars and star clusters, gases and dust, all on the Sagittarius arm. And that fact.

What you actually see is one of the Milky Way spirals, not the central light of the Milky Way. No one can see that, not you, and certainly not the ancient Egyptians.

To the Egyptians, there was no centre of the Milky Way. What you are describing and interpreting are anachronistic.

All you keep doing is burying your head in the sand.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
But you are excused since to you, myths are just myths without any astronomical implications at all.
Then you are just preaching, not wanting discussion or debates.

If you don’t want different opinions, if you don’t want people to disagree with you, then you should be posting your thread in the Discussion sections of the forum, not in the Debate sections.

And beside that, who else would really talk about myths with you?

Polymath257, Subduction Zone, Ecco and exchemist mainly focused on science behind astronomy and physical cosmology. They really couldn’t have care less about what you have to say about Egyptian myths.

So basically you have really no one to talk to about myths.
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
The fine thing about modern cosmological science is that they´ve discovered the Sagittarius A center which defines the precise center with all kind of telescopes and with all kinds of different light filters.

I´ve seen an animation of this center and how stars are moving around this center.

The direct observation of Sagittarius A and orbiting stars is a direct and blatant contradiction of "heavy/massive black holes/objects" assumption in galactic centers.
What is the contradiction? Be clear.

We know there is a supermassive object there that stars close by orbit. It is small enough that the only possibility is a black hole.
One one hand "heavy black holes" where "everything disappears, even light" is assumed, but on the other hand, the very precise center, Sagittarius A is observed having several stars orbiting the center in our galaxy.

Conclusion: There are no black holes in galaxies. And this is even confirmed by the galactic motion of stars, which indicates an outgoing motion in our galaxy.
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Why do you think that is a contradiction to the BB expansion?
Because of the uneven distribution and especially of a local area where gravity, "created a the Big Bang" suddenly works extra heavy according to the assumptions. And of course because the motion goes against the overall expanding motions.

You:
"Or a non-zero value for the cosmological constant"??? This is a pure mathematical speculation and you know it.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Yes, and and this glow is what our ancestors observed as the Milky Way River.
Yes, but the glow can be seen, but the glow is not from the centre of the Milky Way, which is what you are claiming.

As Polymath257 pointed out, that glow is caused by the stars located on the arm, not from the centre.

No one without the necessary technology could not possibly see the centre, no matter how sharp one's sight is and no matter how dark a region you or the ancestors lived in. The Sagittarius spiral arm blocked the view of the centre.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I know it is image of Nut, because her father Shu is holding up underneath her, and her brother Geb is lying or reclining on his back.
This is a very common image of Nut, Geb and Shu.
If the same image of a woman with stars painted on her body without Shu and Geb, then I could agree with you that it might be Hathor.
Hathor or Nut doesn´t really matter - unless one is nitt-picking. They BOTH represent the same ASTRONOMICAL imagery.

As long as you keep denying this mytho-astronomical fact, and as long as you keep on discussing without having a constructive approach to what I´m saying, I don´t care of commenting on the rest of your sentences in your actual post.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Yes, but the glow can be seen, but the glow is not from the centre of the Milky Way, which is what you are claiming.

As Polymath257 pointed out, that glow is caused by the stars located on the arm, not from the centre.

No one without the necessary technology could not possibly see the centre, no matter how sharp one's sight is and no matter how dark a region you or the ancestors lived in. The Sagittarius spiral arm blocked the view of the centre.
How often shall I have to tell you that you cannot compare our ancestral observations with mechanical instruments? You cannot judge or interpret myths via any instruments without taking the human sences into your equations.

I know perfectly well that the outlook of the galactic center on the southern hemisphere have a black line in the middle of the galaxy, called the "black rift". But on both upper and lower sides of this line, a luminous bulged area can be observed and together, this is how our ancestors symbolized the Milky Way center and it´s central "Holy Mound".
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
But you are excused since to you, myths are just myths without any astronomical implications at all.
Then you are just preaching, not wanting discussion or debates.
If you don’t want different opinions, if you don’t want people to disagree with you, then you should be posting your thread in the Discussion sections of the forum, not in the Debate sections.
I wouldn´t call your discussions with me as a discussion of "Ancient Creation Stories", as this topic partly concerns. For your part it mostly is a demonstration of denial of the mythical contents and context, which is totally useless for me.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Hathor or Nut doesn´t really matter - unless one is nit-picking.
You really don't like to being wrong, do you?

So if anyone disagree with you, it is called nit-picking.

What do you are doing, when you say to me Re is not a sun god or Hathor is not sun goddess? Not nit-picking?

Isn't that double standard?

If you see the image of the goddess with Shu and Geb, then it should be clear to everyone that the goddess is Nut, not Hathor.

Nut, unlike Hathor is the granddaughter of Re, not daughter of Re. So no, Native, it is not nit-picking.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Native said:
But you are excused since to you, myths are just myths without any astronomical implications at all.

I wouldn´t call your discussions with me as a discussion of "Ancient Creation Stories", as this topic partly concerns. For your part it mostly is a demonstration of denial of the mythical contents and context, which is totally useless for me.
What a load of craps, Native.

I have no problem with following contents and contexts of myths.

My problem is with your interpretation of the myths, not the myths itself.

I disagree with your interpretations, nothing more, nothing less.

I also disagree with your interpretations of science. Again, nothing more, nothing less.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
In term of astronomy, without any technology to observe the night sky, hence the naked eye, therefore people in prehistoric and ancient times as well as modern time, people would only see a very small portion of the Milky Way.
Nonsense! Our ancestors observed the ENTIRE Milky Way as a grey/white band on the night Sky, but you can´t recognize this and it´s astronomical implications, because you don´t take myths seriously.
 
Top