Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[Jumi]

BTW: Which is your native culture?

Finnish.

 

[Native]

I'm pretty sure ancients had taken in what was around them and placed in their own interpretation through intentional and unintentional embellishment and fabrication.

There are so many creation stories and so many variations evidencing that. I think a commonality would be that it's clear we all are under the same observable cosmos from which they gave birth to so many stories , like looking at a vivid painting before you that captures your imagination and mind.

-------------
Hello Nowhere Man and welcome

I fully agree in this. We all live on the same Earth; in the same Solar System; in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same local part of the observable Universe. This is of course and in fact our COMMON cultural story of the creation.

The big question is how and if we can connect the ancient stories and symbols to the correct celestial objects and motions. Which I think is possible and plausible to a large extend.

 

[Native]

It is my opinion that the difficulties for modern humans to understand the ancient myths, is because most modern humans don´t observe the nature itself and the celestial imagery and the seasonal changes in both areas.

If we do, the ancient myths are very simple and easy to understand.

 

[Native]

Regarding the ancient cyclic world perception and the linear perception in the Big Bang theory.

Cosmological scientists have recently discovered a galaxy, COSMOS-AzTEC-1 which really "shouldn´t be there" according to the formation theory in the Big Bang idea.

This 12.4 bill. year old galaxy should not be so organized and so active in forming stars because it should be an very early formation.

This of course contradicts the very idea in the Big Bang theory in which "distances in cosmos are equaled to the general formation process", which, seen by ancient eyes, is contraintuitive.

When the theorists in the Big Bang supporters illustrates their ideas, they come up with This Figure which should illustrate the beginning and the development of formation.

In this illustration galaxies is shown as the last formations away from the beginning, which is said to be the youngest formations. Even here the scientist contradicts themselves in the article about the linked galaxy.

Why are they surprised to discover a well developed galaxy so close to the assumed Big Bang age of the Universe?

In my opinion, modern cosmologists are lost in space in their own theories. The Big Bang even contradicts the laws of conservation, claiming a beginning from nothing.

I certainly prefer the ancient knowledge of an eternal cyclical formation, dissolution and re-formation.

 

[blü 2]

ancient stories of creation are comparable with the modern formation stories and sometimes they confirm each other and sometimes they don´t.

Let me be clear: you see no difference between, on the one hand,

the Big Bang idea as developed and being used by science, based on evidence and presently in good standing,​

and on the other,

Genesis 1, which says that God created heaven and earth but nowhere says how , the earth is flat, the heavenly bodies go round it, the earth and trees existed before the sun and stars did, the sky is a solid dome, and so on​

?

But which are closest to a natural "truth"?

By your definition, the one derived from the reasoned study of nature, surely?

The big question for me in this thread, is whether ancient and modern stories tells the same basic story and which of these stories are the most natural and logical.

They saw the same earth, sea and sky as we see but they thought what they saw was created by magic, and sometimes wondered Who? and Why? We don't think magic works or explains anything so we use physics and are much concerned with What? and How?

 

[Native]

They saw the same earth, sea and sky as we see but they thought what they saw was created by magic, and sometimes wondered Who? and Why? We don't think magic works or explains anything so we use physics and are much concerned with What? and How?

-------------
"But they thought"? How can you tell what they thought? Regarding their cosmological/mythical thoughts they told everything in a symbolic language and different markings of their astronomical observations and knowledge.

If and when somebody thinks they thought that everything was "created by magic", they underestimates our ancestors and this is just because they don´t understand the mythical language of our ancestors.

 

[blü 2]

-------------
"But they thought"? How can you tell what they thought? Regarding their cosmological/mythical thoughts they told everything in a symbolic language and different markings of their astronomical observations and knowledge.

We can tell what our distant ancestors thought by for example looking at their creation myths (>here's< a list of some of them). They weren't stupid but they weren't scientific.

If and when somebody thinks they thought that everything was "created by magic"

. Genesis 1 says God created heaven and earth but doesn't say how. A clue is provided when God creates light using magic words. If you disagree, I'd be interested to hear your views on what method of creation they attributed to their gods.

underestimates our ancestors and this is just because they don´t understand the mythical language of our ancestors.

I'm not clear what point you're making. Surely you agree that in the Bronze Age, people thought the earth was flat, and at the center of creation, and that the sun and stars went round it, just as their senses told them? And that they believed in ghosts, and spirits, and gods, and magic?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hello All
It is my opinion that ancient stories of creation are comparable with the modern formation stories and sometimes they confirm each other and sometimes they don´t. But which are closest to a natural "truth"?

Again IMO ancient stories of creation speaks of a cyclic creation process of creation, dissolution and re-creation, where modern theories mostly speaks of a beginning of the Universe and a linear time of about 13.8 bill. years.

When considering how much our ancestors could observe of the cosmos in day- and night time, the physical limits would at the most be observations of the Milky Way, which most likely would be included in their stories.

Besides this, some persons also would consider the possibility of the human spirit/mind to sense the cosmic realms in the Milky Way and beyond. (Most of us have read of persons in the Bible and elsewhere, who had a "close encounter with the force of creation")

Modern cosmology have gone far out in space and shown lots of marvelous images of galaxies and even earthly planets around stars. All over the place modern cosmology have made hypothesis and theories, right from the Solar System formation to galaxies, clusters of galaxies and superclusters of galaxies.

The big question for me in this thread, is whether ancient and modern stories tells the same basic story and which of these stories are the most natural and logical.

What do you think of this?

Note: I am NOT a creationist but I have studied cultural Myths of Creation and Modern Cosmology

Hello!

I am a lover of scientific method, and also a great lover of mythology and creation stories. A scientific theory is not the same thing as a creation story. A creation story comes out of our right brains, our creative religious imagination -- we use these stories not just to explain natural occurrences to ourselves (a very base explanation of myths) but to convey deep eternal truths about the universe that are apparent on an intuitive level. Science isn't interested in learning truths, it is interested in learning facts. Love is blind is a truth. My TV is 52 inches is a scientific fact. The thing about the Big Bang, science's creation story, is that it is a theory based upon facts. It doesn't come out of our creative imagination.

 

[Native]

. Genesis 1 says God created heaven and earth but doesn't say how. A clue is provided when God creates light using magic words. If you disagree, I'd be interested to hear your views on what method of creation they attributed to their gods.

----------------
This is just the Biblical part of the numerous cultural stories of creation. The mythical part and symbolism is largely left out, especially the female part of creation.

You can for instants read of the Egyptian story of creation, The Ogdoad, where different deities of both sexes represent different aspect of cosmic elements and stages which came together and created the central light from where everything was created.

I'm not clear what point you're making. Surely you agree that in the Bronze Age, people thought the earth was flat, and at the center of creation, and that the sun and stars went round it, just as their senses told them? And that they believed in ghosts, and spirits, and gods, and magic?

--------------
I don´t agree that the Bronze Age people generally thought that the Earth was flat and neither the thought the Earth was the center OF creation, but rather the center IN creation from where they physically observed everything.

In the Hindy mythology it is said about the holy Mount Meru, that "the Sun and its planets orbits this center as one unit". Modern scholars have problems of understanding this cosmological myth, but taken for granted, this center in question cannot be a center on the Earth. So our ancestors were not geocentric as such.

You asked into the meaning of this:

If and when somebody thinks they thought that everything was "created by magic", they underestimates our ancestors and this is just because they don´t understand the mythical language of our ancestors.

-------------
Agreed, this was a bit of "word salad". I just meant that we have to understand how our ancestors described their world in symbols and that these symbols represented real cosmological facts where the myth and it´s symbols describes real objects and celestial motions in the day- and nighttime.

If we don´t think of this, we tends to put the entire meaning into the large archaeological explanation pit of "this must be ritual and hunting magics".

 

[Native]

I am a lover of scientific method, and also a great lover of mythology and creation stories. A scientific theory is not the same thing as a creation story. A creation story comes out of our right brains, our creative religious imagination -- we use these stories not just to explain natural occurrences to ourselves (a very base explanation of myths) but to convey deep eternal truths about the universe that are apparent on an intuitive level.

-------------
Hello IndigoChild and welcome

Me too. But deep in my mind ancient myths of creation very well can be compared to modern science, since both areas describes the same.

You:
" . . . A creation story comes out of our right brains, our creative religious imagination . . "

Yes sort of, but IMO this story derives from REAL physical or/and spiritual observations and inspirations/visions. The creation story is build up by these physical and spiritual senses, where humans communicates with the creation as such.

I agree with your " . . . to convey deep eternal truths about the universe that are apparent on an intuitive level".

This is very difficult for modern humans to understand how we can achieve knowledge via our intuitive skills. Most modern humans uses all kinds of instruments in order to examine and discover this and that instead of using our most direct and embedded skill for gathering knowledge.

 

[blü 2]

----------------
This is just the Biblical part of the numerous cultural stories of creation. The mythical part and symbolism is largely left out, especially the female part of creation.

I agree that some cultures were patriachal, like the Canaanites and Greeks, and some were more egalitarian. I think we've given up the notion that Çatal Hüyük was matriachal. But that's not the issue.

I don´t agree that the Bronze Age people generally thought that the Earth was flat and neither the thought the Earth was the center OF creation, but rather the center IN creation from where they physically observed everything.

All the evidence I've seen says the opposite. But if you have quotes from the Bronze Age saying the world is spherical and the stars are distant suns, please lay them out for me.

In the Hindy mythology it is said about the holy Mount Meru, that "the Sun and its planets orbits this center as one unit".

Interesting. What's the reference to that quote, and about when was it written?

Modern scholars have problems of understanding this cosmological myth, but taken for granted, this center in question cannot be a center on the Earth. So our ancestors were not geocentric as such.

I'll be interested to look at this apparent exception you mention, but one example wouldn't equate to 'our ancestors'.

Agreed, this was a bit of "word salad". I just meant that we have to understand how our ancestors described their world in symbols and that these symbols represented real cosmological facts where the myth and it´s symbols describes real objects and celestial motions in the day- and nighttime.

Do you have a nice clear example handy?

And do we have any issue as to whether the ancients believed in magic or not? Or do we agree that they did?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

-------------
Hello IndigoChild and welcome

Me too. But deep in my mind ancient myths of creation very well can be compared to modern science, since both areas describes the same.

You:
" . . . A creation story comes out of our right brains, our creative religious imagination . . "

Yes sort of, but IMO this story derives from REAL physical or/and spiritual observations and inspirations/visions. The creation story is build up by these physical and spiritual senses, where humans communicates with the creation as such.

I agree with your " . . . to convey deep eternal truths about the universe that are apparent on an intuitive level".

This is very difficult for modern humans to understand how we can achieve knowledge via our intuitive skills. Most modern humans uses all kinds of instruments in order to examine and discover this and that instead of using our most direct and embedded skill for gathering knowledge.

Very nice to make the aquaintence of someone into shamanism -- very rare in real life.

Make no mistake, science has earned our respect because it delivers the goods, and I have absolutely enormous respect for it. But materialism is not my bag of tricks. To me the things that we touch, see, and measure are not nearly as real as ideas such as love and justice. I have developed my sense of reason, but I have learned that if my reason and my intuition are telling me two different things, the odds are that my intuition has it right. I deeply value creative imagination, especially in story telling. I don't think of myth as synonymous with "lies." Rather, myth is the most powerful genre of literature there is, slipping past our censors to influence us on an unconscious level.

 

[Native]

All the evidence I've seen says the opposite. But if you have quotes from the Bronze Age saying the world is spherical and the stars are distant suns, please lay them out for me.

-----------------
Such quotes cannot be found, but by going to the sources, reading and interpreting the myths, we can find some indications of knowledge of a spherical Earth.

For instants in the Norse Mythology, we have three dimensions, called Midgaard, Asgaard and Utgaard. Midgaard is the home of humans i.e. the Earth. We then have the myth of the Midgaard Serpent which encircle the entire Midgaard. This encircling indicates a spherical shape and this is even more clear as the Midgaard Serpent IMO represent the white band of the Milky Way contours which runs all over and around the Earth.

Asgaard is the realm where the Sun, the Moon, the planets and the stars seemingly revolves around the Earth - also a clear indication of a spherical Earth. And then Utgaard represent the Milky Way contours in generally. As the Milky Way contour is the largest observable structure in the night Sky, it is connected with the Giant symbolism and also connected to the very story of creation.

About the Mount Meru:

Interesting. What's the reference to that quote, and about when was it written?

-------------
I linked you to the myth above, I think there are some references.

About the center:

I'll be interested to look at this apparent exception you mention, but one example wouldn't equate to 'our ancestors'.

---------

Are you satisfied with my Norse Mythology example above?

And do we have any issue as to whether the ancients believed in magic or not? Or do we agree that they did?

--------------

There are no doubts in my mind that our ancestors used magical incantations in order to get food and generally good life. In this regard there is no significant difference between ancient and modern humans who believe in gods and goddesses.

But when it comes to their cosmological understanding of everything, they were quite precise in describing the ancient known cosmos.

 

[Native]

Make no mistake, science has earned our respect because it delivers the goods, and I have absolutely enormous respect for it. But materialism is not my bag of tricks. To me the things that we touch, see, and measure are not nearly as real as ideas such as love and justice. I have developed my sense of reason, but I have learned that if my reason and my intuition are telling me two different things, the odds are that my intuition has it right. I deeply value creative imagination, especially in story telling. I don't think of myth as synonymous with "lies." Rather, myth is the most powerful genre of literature there is, slipping past our censors to influence us on an unconscious level.

---------
I couldn´t have said it better myself IMO ancient myths of creation have more logical explanations. mostly because of the ancient cyclical world perception instead of the linear ideas in a Big Bang.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

---------
I couldn´t have said it better myself IMO ancient myths of creation have more logical explanations. mostly because of the ancient cyclical world perception instead of the linear ideas in a Big Bang.

It is easy to intuit a cyclical concept of time. After all, the seasons are cyclical, day and night are cyclical, the moon is cyclical, life and death are cyclical... But we know from science that factually there was a beginning to the universe and its space/time, and that this time, however relative it may be, flows in one direction.

 

[Native]

. . .But we know from science that factually there was a beginning to the universe and its space/time, and that this time, however relative it may be, flows in one direction.

-------------
I don´t think we know this. But this is what modern science come up with, in spite such an assumption directly contradict the scientific law of energy conservation where everything is changing but in an energetic balance. Big Bang is nothing more that a theory based on speculations and assumptions.

Contrary to this modern Big Bang idea, most of the ancient stories of creation clearly speaks of of an eternal and cyclical cosmos in where everything is eternally created, dissolved and re-created.

When ancient myth of creation clearly ALSO speaks of "a beginning", this telling takes off with a description of the pre-conditions of a beginning, and this "beginning" is just a description of HOW the creation works as a principle.

Besides this, I don´t think our ancestors primarily spoke of a creation of the Entire Universe, but about the creation of and in our Milky Way galaxy at the most. For instants had the Egyptians their goddess Hathor to represent the Milky Way as linked here. In this way Hathor is the Mother Goddess of the entire Milky Way, from which center everything in the Milky Way is formed and born. (Hence also the mythical term of The Cosmic Womb)

In the Norse Mythology of "Ragnarok" this myth isn´t about "everything is ending" as modern scholars read it, but that everything changes eternally.

 

[Native]

BTW:

And do we have any issue as to whether the ancients believed in magic or not? Or do we agree that they did?

------------
Back in 1991 I visited a large Rock Art area in Bohuslen, north of Gøteborg, Sweden. One day a director of a Rock Art Museum and I were visiting a location where lots of smaller and larger "cup marks", were carved in the rock surface.

The popular standard archaeological explanation of these cupmarks is that our ancestors used these holes in "magical offering rituals for good hunting and other things".

Already at this time I was interested in "astroarchaeology" and I immediately observed a recognizable figure on the rock surfase. When I told the director what I meant about this figure, he just turned me off and asked me to stop with that nonsense.

The figure I found, was the significant image of the Orion Star Constellation as illustrated here on my website.

This just shows that ancient knowledge isn´t all about ritual incantations but also of real celestial observations which our ancestors back in the Stone- and Bronze Age carved into the rock surfaces as an early kind of "bible"

 

[blü 2]

BTW:

------------
Back in 1991 I visited a large Rock Art area in Bohuslen, north of Gøteborg, Sweden. One day a director of a Rock Art Museum and I were visiting a location where lots of smaller and larger "cup marks", were carved in the rock surface.

The popular standard archaeological explanation of these cupmarks is that our ancestors used these holes in "magical offering rituals for good hunting and other things".

Already at this time I was interested in "astroarchaeology" and I immediately observed a recognizable figure on the rock surfase. When I told the director what I meant about this figure, he just turned me off and asked me to stop with that nonsense.

The figure I found, was the significant image of the Orion Star Constellation as illustrated here on my website.

This just shows that ancient knowledge isn´t all about ritual incantations but also of real celestial observations which our ancestors back in the Stone- and Bronze Age carved into the rock surfaces as an early kind of "bible"

I have no trouble in principle with the idea that ancient rock carvings may correspond with constellations. Still, the ancient understanding of the sky would have had little in common with ours; and the gods of a great many peoples are said to life 'in the sky', so the carvings are possibly be religious - a divine nexus would be a strong candidate for motive, no?

 

[ecco]

Alternatively, some of the ancient stories (Genesis) were presented as literal fact. God did indeed create the universe in six days 6000 years ago. He created Man just as it is written.

------------
I wouldn´t take the biblical 6 days creation literary but rather as "stages of creation".

Perhaps you wouldn't. However, you are not living in the world of 3-5,000 years ago. To the folks back then, and even long before, these stories were taken as literal truth. After all, what other explanation could there possibly be?

 

[ecco]

Although my country is a Christian one, it was a shock to us in school religion classes when we learned about fundamentalism in the US. I believe this was around 8th grade. But then again our state church has now female priests and bishop, heavy metal and has LGBT-themed gatherings and gives shelter to refugees... I'm not a member or Christian so I'm not selling anything. Just showing that the perspectives are not as limited as "two choices".

Your country has a "State Church"?