Posted 24 September 2010 - 04:38 AM
I have found the most fascinating book. This attempts to trace the
history of the whole world from 687 BC back to 9,500 BC using
resources in hundreds of languages. Obviously it's quite a long book.
This was the period in which science and theology were the same
subject, because the gods could be plainly seen hanging in the sky all
the time. It draws from scientific suppositions currently held by
dozens of scientists (which is to say they are not accepted by many
scientists) to analyze ancient religious and tribal stories from all
over the world. The conclusions are quite surprising. One example of a
surprise: People have hunted very hard for evidence of a great
worldwide flood. They found two. Neither of them is Noah's flood. No
evidence has ever been found to support the story of Noah's flood even
though the story was recorded in about 500 different languages all
over the world. The possible explanation offered in this book is
something you would never have imagined if the ancients had not
preserved the story for you.
In some ways, this could be considered the story of science and
religion trying to learn how to cope as the gods abandoned men.
Recovering the Lost World,
A Saturnian Cosmology -- Jno Cook
-- www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/
[Amore from same:
From the above link:
Quote
".. a large planet stood above the North Pole
for a very long time."
That fact is certain; and that is what this site is about.
The planet Saturn moved on a wildly elliptical path around the Sun
in the remote past, entering the Solar System at very long
intervals. Some time in the last 6 to 3 million years, perhaps
after passing close to Jupiter, Saturn was placed in a much closer
orbit around the Sun, very near Earth. From about 5800 BC, Saturn
captured and held the Earth in a sub-polar position until 3100 BC,
when Earth broke away.
You're kidding, right? :confused:
How did earth break away? Did it run out the back door when Saturn
briefly turned its back? :lol:
And you lecture others about supposedly not knowing what they're
talking about.
That is a very long book. I don't think you have had enough time
[A
other quotes, other locations...
Posted By: TheMythSmith
Date: Tuesday, 19-Jan-2010 20:31:44
In Response To: CLIMATE CATASTROPHES OF THE LAST 5000 YEARS
(TheMythSmith)
"4200 B.C. SATURN LIGHTS UP... NOVA DISCHARGE CREATES VENUS AND THE
RINGS"
ca 4200 BC: Saturn lights up
Saturn goes through a nova event -- a mass discharge which creates
its rings and Venus -- and lights up. This is the moment of
'creation.' The arc at the point of contact with Earth creates
massive cloudbanks and probably causes renewed glaciation.
The following presentation is offered as a contribution to the
enormous work of reconstructing the true story of the world.
Reference to plasma physics and electric universe concepts may be
familiar to some readers.
However, viewing the familiar chronology through a template
constrained within the requirements of an electrical account of the
recent solar system may leave new and lasting impressions.
The full sweep of significance may more than offset disagreement on
points of detail that naturally arise in early explorations of a
field of knowledge.
- - -
The Terror of Venus is the rather uninviting topic that opens
chapter 10, "Exodus and Fall of the Middle Kingdom" in Jno Cook's
online book Recovering the Lost World.
The book opens with a quote and a comment...
"...a large planet stood above the North Pole for a very long
time."
...... and on and on..
oops. last one: www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/
from -- http://able2know.org/topic/127080-3
Setanta
1
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2008 10:40 am
Oooo . . . a Velikovskian catastrophist web site . . . that's a lot
more convincing than Answers in Genesis . . .
. . . not.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply Mon 29 Dec, 2008 10:50 am
Gunga Dim has given us a page from a mirror site . . . i suspect he
would be too embarrassed to have us go directly to
"saturniancosmology.org." The Saturn in this "saturniancosmology"
refers to a claim that Saturn was located directly "above" the Earth's
north pole:
Quote:
".. a large planet stood above the North Pole for a very long time."
That fact is certain; and that is what this site is about.
... etc
ending with:
Oh yeah . . . Gunga Dim's givin' us the really good stuff now . . . we
asked for evidence, and GD doesn't intend to disappoint.
For those with a little time on their hands, and a penchant for
self-amuse, try a view of Saturnian Cosmology-dot-org
0 Replies
....
He doesn't want to get caught again directly
quoting Answers in Genesis, or a goofy site like Saturnian
Cosmologies.
-- from www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f
New post by Grey Cloud » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:46 am
Hi Lloyd,
Cook's site doesn't 'apparently' say that, it definitely says it on
the first page right above where the main text begins.
Although Cook's site seems to contain some Velikovskian ideas that
others have since discarded, if you believe Cook's statement above is
impossible, then you're on the wrong forum, because that's exactly
what the team of authors who started this forum and website have
discovered to be very probably true.
I am on this forum for a variety of reasons and none of them involve
an uncritical acceptance of what anyone says. As far as I'm aware
Talbott's Saturn model is different from Cardona's so this in itself
would seem to suggest that the evidence is not quite as clear-cut as
the likes of yourself and Cook maintain.
They believe it for 2 reasons: 1. the ancients the world over said
very clearly that that was the case and that the planet that was seen
there stationary, but eventually rotating, for centuries, if not
millennia, was Saturn, meaning Earth was a moon of Saturn; 2. the
major force in the universe is the electrical force, rather than
gravity, and that's why the Earth, Mars and Venus could have, and most
probably were, aligned along Saturn's south polar axis during that
time.
Reason 1: Show me where the ancients say 'very clearly that this was
the case'.
Reason 2. Electricity may be a 'major force' in the universe but it is
a non sequitur to suggest that it follows that the planets were
aligned as you suggest.
Cardona, Talbott and other authors have also found that the
descriptions the ancients left of events strongly suggest that the
Saturn system originated outside the Solar System and slowly merged
with it over centuries.
Again, where are these strongly supportive descriptions left by the
ancients? I opened this thread two months ago but the ancient textual
evidence has not exactly flown in.
I have read God Star and was less than impressed with the standard of
scholarship never mind the actual theory. See here:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1016&start=15#p10555
.......
New post by moses » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:40 pm
And yes, I have read all of Cook's site. Grey Cloud
You must be the greatest speed reader ever!
Mo
.......
New post by Lloyd » Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:48 am
* You said: Show me where the ancients say 'very clearly that this was
the case', [i.e. that the planets are gods]
* I don't know why you can't look it up yourself, but here are some
examples.
http://www.varchive.org/itb/deif.htm
* The ancients were sufficiently enlightened to know that the planets
are large rocks like the Earth that circle on orbits.(8) And this
makes the modern scholars wonder: knowing that the planets are rocks,
why did the ancients believe that they are gods?(9)
8. This was the teaching of Anaxagoras as reported by Diogenes
Laertius, Lives of the Famous Philosophers, II. 8.
9. E. Pfeiffer, Gestirne und Wetter im griechischen Volksglauben
(Leipzig, 1914), pp. 24f. [The deification of the planets is advocated
in the Platonic Epinomis 471; cf. also Cicero, De Natura Deorum II.
21. 54-55.]
* In the Persian holy books it is said that "on the planets depends
the existence or non-existence of the world--wherefore are they
especially to be venerated." (10) "The seven planets rule the
universe," says a Nabatean inscription.(11) The Greeks and Romans
believed that "everything is, in fact, subject to the changes brought
about by the revolutions of the stars." (12)
10. Yasnav I. 307. See J. Scheftelowitz, Die Zeit als
Schicksalgottheit in der indischen und iranischen Religion (Stuttgart,
1929), p. 2.
11. D. Chwolson, Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus (St. Petersburg, 1856),
vol. II, pp. 604f.
12. Cumont, Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans, pp.
113-114; [cf. M. P. Nilsson, "The Origin of Belief among the Greeks in
the Divinity of the Heavenly Bodies," Harvard Tr. Rel. 33 (1940), pp.
1ff. and idem, "Symbolisme astronomique et mystique dans certains
cultes publics grecs," Homages Bidez-Cumont (1949), pp. 217ff. Cf.
also P. Boyance, "La religion astrale de Platon a Ciceron," Revue des
Etudes Grecques LXV (1952), pp. 312-350.]
* According to ancient Hebrew traditions, "there are seven archangels,
each of whom is associated with a planet." (13) "The seven archangels
were believed to play an important part in the universal order through
their associations with the planets. . . ." (14)
13. J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition (New York, 1939),
p. 98.
14. Ibid., p. 250.
* The reason for the deification of the planets lay in the fact that
the planets only a short time ago were not faultlessly circling
celestial bodies, nor were they harmless. This is also expressed in a
Mandaean text: "How cruel are the planets that stay there and conspire
evil in their rage . . . the planets conspire in rage against us."
(15)
15. M. Lidzbarski, "Ein mandaeischer Amulett," Florilegium, pp. 350f.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamian_mythology
* The Sky deities
The name of the Gods in Sumerian {DINGIR} was written with the same
cuneiform glyph used to represent the word "sky" {AN}, and indeed all
the principal Mesopotamian Gods were identified with the sky. The
movements of these bodies was considered linked to events on earth
giving rise to the practice of astrology.
http://www.theoi.com/Titan/AstraPlaneta.html
* Plato, Cratylus 400d & 409c (trans. Lamb) (Greek philosopher C4th
B.C.) :
"[Plato constructs philosophical etymologies for the names of the gods
:]
Sokrates : Let us inquire what thought men had in giving them [the
gods] their names . . . The first men who gave names [to the gods]
were no ordinary persons, but high thinkers and great talkers . . .
But why should you not tell of another kind of gods, such as sun,
moon, stars, earth, ether, air, fire, water, the seasons, and the
year? . . . I think the stars (astera) get their name from astrapê
(lightning).
* Cicero, De Natura Deorum 2. 15 & 20 ff (trans. Rackham) (Roman
rhetorician C1st B.C.) :
"We must also assign the same divinity to the Stellae (Stars) [fixed
and wandering], which are formed from the most mobile and the purest
part of the aether (upper atmosphere), and are not compounded of any
other element besides; they are of a fiery heat and translucent
throughout. Hence they too have the fullest right to be pronounced
living beings endowed with sensation and intelligence . .
* Cicero, De Natura Deorum 3. 19 :
"You say that Sol the Sun and Luna the Moon are deities, and the
Greeks identify the former with Apollo and the latter with Diana
[Artemis]. But if Luna (the Moon) is a goddess, then Lucifer (the
Morning-Star) [Hesperos] also and the rest of the Stellae Errantes
(Planets) will have to be counted gods; and if so, then the Stellae
Inerrantes (Fixed Stars) as well."
http://www.gks.uk.com
* Tuthmosis (Moon) ... "Son of Ra, of his body, his beloved Tuthmosis,
shining like Ra....."
Hatshepsut (Venus) ... "Live the Horus: Wosretkew; Favorite of the Two
Goddesses; Fresh in Years; Golden Horus: Divine of Diadems; splendid
part of her father, Amon-Ra, lord of heaven, who has not been far
removed from the father of all gods, shining in brightness like the
Horizon-God she illuminates like the sun (Ra), vivifying the hearts of
the people, who is exalted in name so that it hath reached heaven."
http://www.nasm.si.edu/CEPS/ETP/discovery/disc_ancient.html
The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum says:
To the people of many ancient civilizations, the planets were thought
to be deities. Our names for the planets are the Roman names for these
deities. For example, Mars was the god of war and Venus the goddess of
love.
http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/p-betw2.htm
* Early astrology
Astrological ideas formed in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and ancient Greece,
and then spread westward. During this early period astrology
coagulated into a fixed world view that recognised gods in the planets
and signs, whose existence was proven by comparing life on earth with
the movements of the sky.
Lloyd
New post by Grey Cloud » Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:05 am
Hi Lloyd,
This was not originally about planet = god. This started because Moses
recommended Cooke's site to NamuNamuNamu and I commented that Cooke's
site was crap. To back up my assertion I quoted a couple of lines from
the top of the front page of Cooke's site:
".. a large planet stood above the North Pole for a very long time."
That fact is certain; and that is what this site is about.
My comment on the above quote was:
That 'fact' is not only not certain, it is not even remotely close to
being probable.
You then came in with two reasons why the owners of this site believe
in the Saturn theory:
1. the ancients the world over said very clearly that that was the
case and that the planet that was seen there stationary, but
eventually rotating, for centuries, if not millennia, was Saturn,
meaning Earth was a moon of Saturn; 2. the major force in the universe
is the electrical force, rather than gravity, and that's why the
Earth, Mars and Venus could have, and most probably were, aligned
along Saturn's south polar axis during that time.
My response to this was:
Reason 1: Show me where the ancients say 'very clearly that this was
the case'.
Reason 2. Electricity may be a 'major force' in the universe but it is
a non sequitur to suggest that it follows that the planets were
aligned as you suggest.
Now you have come back with:
* You said: Show me where the ancients say 'very clearly that this was
the case', [i.e. that the planets are gods]
So it appears to me from the above that this was about planetary
alignment and the role of Saturn (the planet) and not whether planet =
god.
A few words about planet = god. I have stated on more than one
occasion that I do not deny that planets were equated with gods but
that I find the planet = god full stop/period equation far too
simplistic. For instance, how does this equation account for nymphs,
demi-gods,
river-gods etc? Or why do some planets have more than one god assigned
to them, e.g. Ge, Rhea, Demeter etc for the Earth? To what planet is
Hades assigned?
My own current understanding is that originally there were no gods (or
God). My guess would be that gods were 'invented' post-catastrophe.
In support of your god = planet notion you regurgitated some stuff
from Velikovsky. Have you ever read any of these sources? Many of them
are quite old, e.g. 1856, 1914, 1929 and academic scholarship has
moved on since then. Cumont's work on Mithraism for example has been
superceded by modern scholars (see David Ulansey).
As for:
According to ancient Hebrew traditions, "there are seven archangels,
each of whom is associated with a planet." (13) "The seven archangels
were believed to play an important part in the universal order through
their associations with the planets. . . ."
Stretching things a bit there given that Judaism is monotheistic and
archangels are not gods per se.
Cicero's On the Nature of the Gods looks very interesting. What is
even more interesting is the creative quoting by Velikovsky. From
looking at the work it appears that the person doing the talking at
this point is a Stoic as he is citing Zeno (of Citium). In book II, 21
as quoted by
Velikovsky the speaker makes comments which would appear to preclude
any notion of catastrophe let alone support any of the Saturn
theories:
XXI. I cannot, therefore, conceive that this constant course of the
planets, this just agreement in such various motions through all
eternity, can be preserved without a mind, reason, and consideration;
and since we may perceive these qualities in the stars, we cannot but
place them in the rank of Gods...Their motion is daily, regular, and
constant.
[...]
In the heavens, therefore, there is nothing fortuitous, unadvised,
inconstant, or variable: all there is order, truth, reason, and,
constancy; and all the things which are destitute of these qualities
are counterfeit, deceitful, and erroneous, and have their residence
about the earth beneath the moon, the lowest of all the planets.
You also cited Cicero (3:19) via theoi.com. This passage appears to
........ and on and on
.... ok picking up:
actually be 3:20 and whover is talking at this point is arguing
against the notion of gods = planets:
XX. Do you not consider, Balbus, to what lengths your arguments for
the divinity of the heaven and the stars will carry you? You deify the
sun and the moon, which the Greeks take to be Apollo and Diana. If the
moon is a Deity, the morning-star, the other planets, and all the
fixed stars are also Deities; and why shall not the rainbow be placed
in that number? for it is so wonderfully beautiful that it is justly
said to be the daughter of Thaumas. But if you deify the rainbow, what
regard will you pay to the clouds? for the colors which appear in the
bow are only formed of the clouds, one of which is said to have
brought forth the Centaurs; and if you deify the clouds, you cannot
pay less regard to the seasons, which the Roman people have really
consecrated. Tempests, showers, storms, and whirlwinds must then be
Deities. It is certain, at least, that our captains used to sacrifice
a victim to the waves before they embarked on any voyage.
As you deify the earth under the name of Ceres, because, as you said,
she bears fruits (a gerendo), and the ocean under that of Neptune,
rivers and fountains have the same right. Thus we see that Maso, the
conqueror of Corsica, dedicated a temple to a fountain, and the names
of the Tiber, Spino, Almo, Nodinus, and other neighboring rivers are
in the prayers of the augurs. Therefore, either the number of such
Deities will be infinite, or we must admit none of them, and wholly
disapprove of such an endless series of superstition.
XXI. None of all these assertions, then, are to be admitted.
Later, 3:24, it is stated:
Zeno first, and after him Cleanthes and Chrysippus, are put to the
unnecessary trouble of explaining mere fables, and giving reasons for
the several appellations of every Deity; which is really owning that
those whom we call Gods are not the representations of deities, but
natural things, and that to judge otherwise is an error.
And while we are with Cicero, he also makes some interesting comments
about Herakles (3:16), beloved of Ev 'Starf*cker' Cochrane:
With regard to those who, you say, from having been men became Gods, I
should be very willing to learn of you, either how it was possible
formerly, or, if it had ever been, why is it not so now? I do not
conceive, as things are at present, how Hercules,
Burn'd with fiery torches on Mount Oeta,
as Accius says, should rise, with the flames,
To the eternal mansions of his father.
Besides, Homer also says that Ulysses met him in the shades below,
among the other dead.
But yet I should be glad to know which Hercules we should chiefly
worship; for they who have searched into those histories, which are
but little known, tell us of several. The most ancient is he who
fought with Apollo about the Tripos of Delphi, and is son of Jupiter
and Lisyto; and of the most ancient Jupiters too, for we find many
Jupiters also in the Grecian chronicles. The second is the Egyptian
Hercules, and is believed to be the son of Nilus, and to be the author
of the Phrygian characters. The third, to whom they offered
sacrifices, is one of the Idaei Dactyli. The fourth is the son of
Jupiter and Asteria, the sister of Latona, chiefly honored by the
Tyrians, who pretend that Carthago is his daughter. The fifth, called
Belus, is worshipped in India. The sixth is the son of Alcmena by
Jupiter; but by the third Jupiter, for there are many Jupiters, as you
shall soon see.
One wonders how, if the histories of Herakles were little known in
Cicero's day, Cochrane (and others) can be so certain of their facts
today.
I have read Plato's Cratylus and in it the names of the gods are all
related to either mind or movement.
This site I have read and rate it with Cooke's: http://www.gks.uk.com
'The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum says'. They are not an
ancient source nor I think would they in any way support
catastrophism.
This one I haven't read yet but I will:
http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/p-betw2.htm
Though this doesn't bode well:
Astrological ideas formed in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and ancient Greece,
and then spread westward.
What about Vedic astrology and astronomy?
Did you get chance to read this:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1016&start=15#p10555 and are there any of my
comments you would wish to refute?
........
.............and now:
www.proxywhore.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=190083..[D[D[D[D[D[D[[B