DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FUNDAY
HTML https://funday.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Updates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 267--------------------------------------------------
MYTHS
By: Admin Date: November 26, 2019, 12:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
On Saturn and the Flood (Immanuel Velikovsky)
HTML http://rogerswebsite.com/ah/OnSaturnandtheFlood.pdf
The Jupiter Myth
HTML http://www.thunderbolts.inf
o/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.
HTML 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.
HTML 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.
HTML 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
HTML 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
HTML 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
HTML 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
HTML 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.
*****************************************************