Flat Earth

[Jamescm]

How potent is the Flat Earth theory?

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/trudeau-govt ... -problems/

Governments around the world must censor the internet because conspiracy theories like the flat earth theory are actually “really dangerous” and “causing real problems” in society, according to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The reason I don't care about whether or not the Earth is flat is because it's allowed to be said. It is used as a far-level tool to brand people as foolish in some fashion, then used as an excuse to seize control over communication and expression to prevent such "obvious" foolishness from spreading.

The immediate thing to note, of course, is that no one is censored for talking about the Earth being flat. It's a red herring. Things that are already censored, and that the wicked want more power to silence, or the things they're actually worried about:
- Election fraud.
- Environmental fraud.
- The artificial nature behind virtually all nationalized incidents of firearm violence.
- Medical fraud.
- The way that the above four points and more are used with a complicit media to act as a massive propaganda engine to engineer social views and understanding of world events, with only a shallow illusion of "alternative" news options. Also used as a tool to steer the public toward surrendering their God-given freedoms in exchange for false promises of care and protection from those enlisted under the adversary's banner.
- The social and economics effects of communism and socialism.
- The lies and dangers behind the world's fiat currencies and the private banks that control them.
- The trafficking of children used as tools of blackmail and demonic worship.

Justin Fraudueaouexfrenchvowelsoeux could not care less whether anyone says the Earth is flat or not. The audacity of his flimsy words are almost as disgusting as their purpose.

[Ymarsakar]

Can anybody explain well with actual verifiable results, why a gyroscope always tells us that the earth is stationary. Unless there is an actual earth movement, and then as always the gyroscope reacts?

It is common knowledge among people who work with gyroscopes regularly that they always detect the motion of the earth, about 15 degrees per hour.

https://support.sbg-systems.com/sc/kb/l ... gyroscopes

Of course, to Flat Earthers, these findings are part of the same vast conspiracy as satellites and international flights in the Southern Hemisphere.

Shawn Henry said it best way back on page 3 of this thread, when he admitted that he regards any scientific finding that contradicts his worldview as a Satanic deception.

We also should exclude all the irrelevant science projects that don't affect our world view, there is little reason to corrupt things that don't matter. The science that has been targeted are all the areas that affect our worldview, the things relating to the battle for our minds, this fight for good and evil. These are the areas that Satan had bought influence over and he would be a fool not to. You can profess all day long that Satan has power to buy up armies and navies, but when you claim that after that, he must have run out of money to buy space agencies, I'm seeing a discrepancy in your belief system. If our bought and paid for DOD is under his control and NASA is 1/10th the cost, I'm sure he can afford both. Now, if you lack faith that that dialogue in the temple is actually revelatory, I can respect that.

Going forward you should just ignore scientific evidence and ask Shawn how the world works. We are truly blessed to have someone in our midst whose worldview is 100% correct.

How many times per day does an airplane s horizon gyroscope get taken out and reset?

It is common knowledge banks are solid and too big to fail. And it is common knowledge that waxxines are safe and effective. And it is common knowledge nato is a defensive alliance. And it is common that usa defeated 3rd reich.

What is common sense to mankind is foolishness to god and vice a versa.

[Ymarsakar]

That is quite incorrect. Much censorship and shadow suppression was done on flat earth in 2017 to 2019.

Much of the tools used in censorship was in fact prototyped vs flat earthers before alex jones or donald.

That you do not knkw this shows how effective that censorship was.

What is not censored is the flat earth society. Which is not sincere.

How potent is the Flat Earth theory?

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/trudeau-govt ... -problems/

Governments around the world must censor the internet because conspiracy theories like the flat earth theory are actually “really dangerous” and “causing real problems” in society, according to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The reason I don't care about whether or not the Earth is flat is because it's allowed to be said. It is used as a far-level tool to brand people as foolish in some fashion, then used as an excuse to seize control over communication and expression to prevent such "obvious" foolishness from spreading.

The immediate thing to note, of course, is that no one is censored for talking about the Earth being flat. It's a red herring. Things that are already censored, and that the wicked want more power to silence, or the things they're actually worried about:
- Election fraud.
- Environmental fraud.
- The artificial nature behind virtually all nationalized incidents of firearm violence.
- Medical fraud.
- The way that the above four points and more are used with a complicit media to act as a massive propaganda engine to engineer social views and understanding of world events, with only a shallow illusion of "alternative" news options. Also used as a tool to steer the public toward surrendering their God-given freedoms in exchange for false promises of care and protection from those enlisted under the adversary's banner.
- The social and economics effects of communism and socialism.
- The lies and dangers behind the world's fiat currencies and the private banks that control them.
- The trafficking of children used as tools of blackmail and demonic worship.

[Shawn Henry]

Right, and if that were the case then we could simply measure the shadows and determine the altitude of the sun once and for all.

And that's where Flat Earth falls apart, as has been explained umpteen times on this thread.

You can't accurately measure those angles unless you know how much water in between is affecting the measurement. How exactly do you get a humidity reading every ten miles to your target. We've all been in a swimming pool and have seen how water distorts images. We also don't know the if the sun changes in altitude during its course.

[Shawn Henry]

Shawn Henry said it best way back on page 3 of this thread, when he admitted that he regards any scientific finding that contradicts his worldview as a Satanic deception.

We also should exclude all the irrelevant science projects that don't affect our world view, there is little reason to corrupt things that don't matter. The science that has been targeted are all the areas that affect our worldview, the things relating to the battle for our minds, this fight for good and evil. These are the areas that Satan had bought influence over and he would be a fool not to. You can profess all day long that Satan has power to buy up armies and navies, but when you claim that after that, he must have run out of money to buy space agencies, I'm seeing a discrepancy in your belief system. If our bought and paid for DOD is under his control and NASA is 1/10th the cost, I'm sure he can afford both. Now, if you lack faith that that dialogue in the temple is actually revelatory, I can respect that.

Going forward you should just ignore scientific evidence and ask Shawn how the world works. We are truly blessed to have someone in our midst whose worldview is 100% correct.

How is it that you provide a quote that you didn't even read? The context of what we were talking about is what areas of science would the adversary focus his corruption on, and the answer, obviously, is the science the forms one's worlds view. If a science doesn't really affect our world view, like the study of volcanoes, he isn't incentivized to corrupt it. The whole point was to emphasize how illogical it would be for the adversary to leave uncorrupted the fields that have the potential to really alter our thinking.

As for myself, there are no areas of study that I automatically disregard. That would be foolishness. My consideration of Flat Earth alone, shows my openness to consider all things and I definitely don't think my worldview is 100% correct.

[captainfearnot]

You can't accurately measure those angles unless you know how much water in between is affecting the measurement. How exactly do you get a humidity reading every ten miles to your target. We've all been in a swimming pool and have seen how water distorts images. We also don't know the if the sun changes in altitude during its course.

If any of that were true that were true, nagivation by the sun would be fruitless. And yet sextants have proven useful to ocean navigators for hundreds of years. Same with the stars—if the apparent location of the North Star were affected by humidity it would appear to bounce around depending on the weather. We know that's not the case.

But it's clear that the point of this humidity nonsense is to provide a handy excuse for why your math doesn't add up. Like all pseudoscience, Flat Earth is constucted to be unfalsifible.

[Shawn Henry]

If I understand you correctly, you assert based on your understanding of the PoGP that the sun is inside the Earth's atmosphere? This implies that the sun moves around the Earth's atmosphere somehow (I am not well versed in flat earth or dome earth claims). Is this what you are propounding? Are you saying that the Earth is somehow in a fixed position?

Science admits that we can't prove that it is not fixed. Astrophysicists have often said that both a geocentric and a heliocentric view would match what we see in the sky. All I know is that we sense no motion, despite multiple orbits around multiple celestial bodies, all going at insane speeds in multiple different directions. The Bible seems to indicate it is fixed, but I wasn't necessarily referencing that.

My point about the two creation accounts in the PoGP is that they are very clear that the earth's waters were divided and that the above waters are placed above the sun, moon, and stars. Every light in the sky is within the earth's divided waters.

A literal interpretation of those two accounts debunks the heliocentric model.

A figurative interpretation isn't possible, because it would make God a liar when he plainly said the earth's waters are above the sun.

Putting a figurative interpretation on a lie doesn't negate the lie.

Did my explanation of the two cups on the table make sense to you?

[Shawn Henry]

You can't accurately measure those angles unless you know how much water in between is affecting the measurement. How exactly do you get a humidity reading every ten miles to your target. We've all been in a swimming pool and have seen how water distorts images. We also don't know the if the sun changes in altitude during its course.

If any of that were true that were true, nagivation by the sun would be fruitless. And yet sextants have proven useful to ocean navigators for hundreds of years. Same with the stars—if the apparent location of the North Star were affected by humidity it would appear to bounce around depending on the weather. We know that's not the case.

But it's clear that the point of this humidity nonsense is to provide a handy excuse for why your math doesn't add up. Like all pseudoscience, Flat Earth is constucted to be unfalsifible.

I didn't say it is fruitless. Of course, navigation by the stars and sun is possible. It has always been possible. It is even more possible with fixed stars like Polaris that somehow the heliocentric model of an exploding universe leaves in the same position in the sky millenia later.

You saying your math works and my doesn't is a weak argument. First off, I don't have any math and secondly, I doubt you understand math that well. No doubt you are convinced by those who make claims on the math, but I am not.

[thetechnologyvault]

I've been investigating the flat earth arguments over the past year or so, especially as I've come to realize that so much of the context for our modern society is built on lies intentionally.

Flat earth explains a lot to me that I've wondered about in the past, including:

- Why we were flying over the Bering Strait when I traveled from LA to Shanghai on an airplane.
- Why Joseph Fielding Smith made this statement: "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."
- Why we can't feel ourselves moving, although we're supposed to be experiencing acceleration as we move in a circular pattern

One of the most obvious for me is the accepted definition of "Firmament" as described in Wikipedia.

If Moses, who saw the intricate details of worlds without number, didn't correct the Hebrews understanding of the earth, it seems logical from a scriptural standpoint that that model was correct.

It seems like the flat earth model has been hidden from us in plain sight for a long time.

[captainfearnot]

I didn't say it is fruitless.

I know you didn't. I said it would be fruitless, if what you are saying about humidity were correct. Celestial navigation depends on the sun and stars appearing to be where they are supposed to be at a certain time of day, on a certain day of the year. If the apparent angle of the sun in the sky were unreliable due to humidity, then it wouldn't do any good to take a reading with a sextant.

Of course, navigation by the stars and sun is possible. It has always been possible.

Naturally. Which is why it is foolish to claim that we can't accurately measure the angle of the sun in the sky due to humidity. Centuries of navigational experience prove that the sun and the stars appear in the sky where we expect them to.

[captainfearnot]

You saying your math works and my doesn't is a weak argument. First off, I don't have any math and secondly, I doubt you understand math that well. No doubt you are convinced by those who make claims on the math, but I am not.

I'd venture we are both capable of doing the junior high-level geometry involved. It's more a matter of one of us making up excuses not to look at it. I think you nailed it when you said you don't have any math.

[Ymarsakar]

You can't accurately measure those angles unless you know how much water in between is affecting the measurement. How exactly do you get a humidity reading every ten miles to your target. We've all been in a swimming pool and have seen how water distorts images. We also don't know the if the sun changes in altitude during its course.

If any of that were true that were true, nagivation by the sun would be fruitless. And yet sextants have proven useful to ocean navigators for hundreds of years. Same with the stars—if the apparent location of the North Star were affected by humidity it would appear to bounce around depending on the weather. We know that's not the case.

But it's clear that the point of this humidity nonsense is to provide a handy excuse for why your math doesn't add up. Like all pseudoscience, Flat Earth is constucted to be unfalsifible.

If modern day science was true, the globe and apollo would obey simple mathematical equations.

You criticize flat earth theory for falling apart, but have you noticed "the science" already fell apart in 2020?

[Ymarsakar]

I've been investigating the flat earth arguments over the past year or so, especially as I've come to realize that so much of the context for our modern society is built on lies intentionally.

Flat earth explains a lot to me that I've wondered about in the past, including:

- Why we were flying over the Bering Strait when I traveled from LA to Shanghai on an airplane.
- Why Joseph Fielding Smith made this statement: "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."
- Why we can't feel ourselves moving, although we're supposed to be experiencing acceleration as we move in a circular pattern

One of the most obvious for me is the accepted definition of "Firmament" as described in Wikipedia.

If Moses, who saw the intricate details of worlds without number, didn't correct the Hebrews understanding of the earth, it seems logical from a scriptural standpoint that that model was correct.

It seems like the flat earth model has been hidden from us in plain sight for a long time.

I am surprised anyone can still find the original research videos, after so much was done to shadow ban it from youtube and google. This was right before Alex Jones was banned in fact, if I recall.

[marc]

If I understand you correctly, you assert based on your understanding of the PoGP that the sun is inside the Earth's atmosphere? This implies that the sun moves around the Earth's atmosphere somehow (I am not well versed in flat earth or dome earth claims). Is this what you are propounding? Are you saying that the Earth is somehow in a fixed position?

Science admits that we can't prove that it is not fixed. Astrophysicists have often said that both a geocentric and a heliocentric view would match what we see in the sky. All I know is that we sense no motion, despite multiple orbits around multiple celestial bodies, all going at insane speeds in multiple different directions. The Bible seems to indicate it is fixed, but I wasn't necessarily referencing that.

My point about the two creation accounts in the PoGP is that they are very clear that the earth's waters were divided and that the above waters are placed above the sun, moon, and stars. Every light in the sky is within the earth's divided waters.

A literal interpretation of those two accounts debunks the heliocentric model.

A figurative interpretation isn't possible, because it would make God a liar when he plainly said the earth's waters are above the sun.

Putting a figurative interpretation on a lie doesn't negate the lie.

Did my explanation of the two cups on the table make sense to you?

I will just step back. Have a nice day.

[captainfearnot]

Astrophysicists have often said that both a geocentric and a heliocentric view would match what we see in the sky.

All this means is that all motion is relative to a given frame of reference. When we talk about planetary motion in the solar system it's usually most useful to assume the sun is stationary and everything else orbits it. But all the mechanics work the same no matter what you choose to set as your stationary reference point. You could pick any other planet, or a moon or a comet if you wanted. It would look wierd but it just shows that it's all relative. Geocentric does not mean Flat Earth.

Nevertheless, your constant refrain throughout this thread has been that all observations made under the assumptions of the globe model can be replicated under the assumptions of a Flat Earth model. That's not really true, of course. Or rather, it's only true up to a point.

The diagram below comes from a pro-FE publication and illustrates the exact same situation that h_p was describing to Allison back on page 20 before she begged off (claiming the math was beyond her). It comes from Wilbur Voliva, attempting to show that the same observations in the sky can be explained under either model.


I think we agree that at noon on the Equinox, the sun appears directly overhead at the Equator. It is also well documented that, all over the planet, the apparent angle of the sun in the sky at that moment will be equal to your latitude (actually 90 minus your latitude) north or south. In other words, if you are standing at 45 degrees north (or south) latitude, the sun will appear at 45 degrees above the horizon. If you are standing at 30 degrees latitude, the sun will appear at 60 degrees above the horizon. And so on.

Carl Sagan says that this proves the Earth is round, but Shawn correctly observes that this conclusion assumes the sun is far enough away that its rays are virtually parallel when they reach the earth (all rays hit the earth at the same angle). What if the sun were much, much closer to the Earth, so that the sun's rays hit the earth at widely varying angles? Could that give us the same results?

That's what Voliva has drawn for us here. He chose 45 degrees latitude, probably because that makes the math easy. You can see than in the Flat Earth model, when you are standing at 45 degrees latitude, the sun still appears at 45 degrees above the horizon, just like in the globe model. This works if you assume that the distance of the sun above the point on the Equator is equal to the distance between the Equator and the observer--in this case, about 3,000 miles. According to this observation, if the Earth is flat, the sun must be about 3,000 miles above the Earth.

Of course, if it's that easy to calculate, then why don't all Flat Earthers agree that the sun is 3,000 miles away? Why is Shawn so eager to weasel away from this result and claim that observations aren't reliable and nobody really knows anything? It's because you can tell from a glance at this illustration that this equivalence only works for one latitude at a time.

This is most obvious if you consider the poles. In the Flat Earth diagram, if we draw a triangle between the sun, the Equator, and the North Pole, we can see that an observer standing about 6,000 miles from the Equator should see the sun at an angle of about 27 degrees above the horizon. But the globe model tells us that the same observer would see the sun at zero degrees, right on the horizon.



It doesn't work. Yes, in the FE model you can always find a low altitude for the sun that will give you the same result as the observed angle of the sun from a certain latitude in the globe model. But that altitude doesn't work as soon as you consider the observed angle from a different latitude.

So now that we know that the globe model and FE do not produce the same results, all that is left is to determine which one matches the observed data. Does the sun appear at 27 degrees above the horizon at noon on the equinox at the North Pole? Or zero degrees?

[Ymarsakar]

There is no static North pole and the south pole doesn't even exist.

These math equations failed before people even got around to testing it.

[SempiternalHarbinger]

You are taking just ONE witness, ONE creation account (the diluted King James version no less)

Well, this shows how ignorant you are. I am taking my witness from 3 creation accounts. The two primary accounts are from an actual Seer, Joseph Smith, and are in the Pearl of Great Price. Three accounts, three witnesses. The Law of Witnesses has been met.

All 3 accounts agree harmoniously, the earth's waters are above the entire firmament. They are above the sun, moon, and stars.

The earth's waters enclose every light in the sky.

The only other scenario is that Joseph's translation is completely wrong, that God lied to us because ancient Hebrews were so stupid that they couldn't comprehend stars being far away.

I'm not sure you'll ever be able to make a good case that myth trumps scripture, especially when all the world's mythologies draw the same snow globe-like picture of the waters above.

Wow, Shawn. Forgive me, three, not one. I don't know why I said one when I knew you were referring to 3. Either way, all my points are still more than valid though I doubt you read anything I posted after the first sentence. It's all good. At least some people read it, got something out of it, and took it the way it was intended.

Yea, I think what you believe and propose is way far-fetched and unfounded (Sun in Earth's atmosphere, flat earth, creation, waters above, etc.), but what I and many others are proposing is even crazier. Really. So I get it. No hard feelings. My post on this subject is more food for thought and planting seeds. No desire to argue with you or name-call. But I would like to address a few things above.

I agree, the law of witness is very necessary, but when dealing with a complete reconstruction of the past (ancient heavens) and how big and old these myths are, it is foolish to stop at 3 witnesses/records when there are hundreds of them, especially considering how much they bring to the table and clarify when much clarification is needed. To ignore the embarrassment of riches and huge amounts of ancient testimony, well that is a road that leads to nowhere.

As far as the Hebrews being stupid "that they couldn't comprehend stars being far away", I will say it again, the heavens have completely changed since ancient times. The Sun they worshiped is not our sun of today and the reason why they specifically distinguished it from our sun today. Thus, the Hebrews even named their Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, the day of Saturn, and they named the Sun accordingly. So was the seventh and most sacred day of the Babylonian and Phoenician weeks. For the Romans this commemorative day was Saturni dies, "Saturn's day." The same day passed into the Anglo-Saxon calendar as the "day of Seater [Saturn]," which, became our own Saturday.

At one point the Hebrews regarded their race as having been "Saturnian" in the beginning when they lived under the rule of the creator El (Kolob, the ancient sun god). That is, the Hebrews honored the same ancestral tie to Saturn as did the Romans. According to the great Jewish Scholar Immanuel Velikovsky, even the name "Israel" means "the people of Saturn."... IS (Isis, Egyptian sun/moon goddess) RA (Egyptian sun god) EL (Canaanite/Chaldeans sun god) ISRAEL.

The Egyptians called their God Ra, the creator-king, for the Sumerians it was the high god An, from whom kingship descended. Similarly, the Hindu Brahma, the Chinese Huang-ti, Mexican Quetzalcoatl, Mayan Itzam Na and numerous counterparts among other nations, all presided over a paradisal epoch, while establishing the ideals and principles of kingship. Chaldeans called Saturn/God 'El' and this is where Abraham received it.

Our current solar system was not even on the map to the ancients so to apply our world (current heavens) to the ancients is once again a road that only leads to falsehoods. One mile in the wrong direction is a two-mile error. Unlearning is twice as hard as learning. And let's say there was a dome in the beginning, it's obvious no here anymore. The same goes for the waters above.

As far as myth trumps scripture... Do you even know what myth is? The entire Old Testament and POGP are encompassed in ancient world mythology (Cosmology, ancient heavens). So I don't have to make any argument nor do I need to separate or pit them against one another. It's all the same one story that all have a common origin. If you were to take the myths out of the Scriptures, specifically the Old Testament and POGP, there would be little content left hand that's the truth.

"Mythology is cosmology" - Hugh Nibley

"Mythology is the history of the Solar system." - David Talbott

From Abrahams Egyptian writings, chapter 1 (What Abraham desired, a knowledge of the creation and history of stars and planets as they were made KNOWN to unto the fathers.)

"And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions,...therefore a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers, have I kept even unto this day, and I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me."

Facsimile #2, hypocephalus, also known to all ancient cultures as "The Sun Disk". (Nothing to do with our sun today)



“I also gave some instructions in the mysteries of the kingdom of God; such as the history of the planets, Abraham’s writings upon the planetary systems, etc,” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 118) MYTHOLOGY!

"Without mythology [cosmology] in religion, an important ingredient is missing -- one which the Pearl of Great Price restores."

"The Pearl of great price restores cosmism with vengeance." -Hugh Nibley

"The study of ancient religion starts with mythology enthroned as its true source" - Hugh Nibley, One Eternal Round pg. 96-97

As far as the sun being in the atmosphere of the earth, well plasma cosmology and the electric universe blow that belief to outer darkness. Right now the Earth (and the planets) reside in the sun's solar plasma environment. Indisputable fact.

[SempiternalHarbinger]

FOOD FOR THOUGHT. This next part is not for Shawn Henry but for anyone interested in my previous post and how a comparative approach to ancient world mythology dismisses so many misnomers and clarifies so much-needed clarity when it comes to creation and the "waters" above. Specifically what Shawn claims. The summaries of David Talbott to be presented here presume the reader is familiar with The Saturn Myth, Origins of Myth, Ritual, and Symbolism, & Symbols of an Alien Sky by comparative mythologist David Talbott of the Thunderbolt Project. If you are not familiar with or watched the video below, you probably want to skip this post.

*I don't have a link to this. Sorry. It is a compilation of old posts on the old Thunderbolts Forum which no longer exists. There is a new forum but because of David Talbott's health and not being able to manage that part of the forum, the mythology section is not a part of the new forum as of now.

Revisiting the "Creation" Myth by David Talbott

INTRO:

In the first two years of my research (1972-73), something extraordinary struck me. I realized that the myths of “creation” have been profoundly misunderstood. The reason for this misunderstanding is that the sky has changed entirely. The original subject of the creation myth is no longer present. In the intervening centuries, the myths were progressively reinterpreted to “explain” the origins of everything visible to the human eye, near and far. What emerged at the end of this process was a story about “the creation of heaven and earth.” Whatever you might naturally think of when hearing these words, that was not the subject of the archetypal creation myth.

This realization from 35 years ago was subsequently adopted by all who have worked with the Saturn hypothesis in any detail. But outside our limited audience, the message is virtually unknown. And when most people hear me say, “Creation meant events seen and heard by humankind,” they can only scratch their heads. “How could humans have witnessed something prior to their own existence?” How could the earth have been here before “creation" of the earth?

What they do not realize is that the original story did not concern our earth at all, but events in a celestial theater that vanished thousands of years ago. The true subject of creation mythology is the construction of a celestial dwelling--a cosmic city, temple, or kingdom--revered across the millennia as the prototype of sacred space. It was a revolving wheel-like enclosure. The enclosure rested visually atop a cosmic mountain, the axis of the turning heavens. Its ruler was the warrior-hero, regent of the primeval sun and the axle of the world wheel. And it was the far-famed mother goddess who gave the cosmic wheel its nave and spokes.

This place par excellence was divided by four luminous streams (spokes of the wheel), marking out the four quarters of sacred space and celebrated as four winds, or four rivers of life. These were the “four rivers of paradise” remembered around the world. And the “beings” or primeval “generation” created in these events did not occupy a place “down here.” They were the denizens of the celestial realm, arising as the explosive outflow from the creator god himself, or more specifically as the discharge of his own eye or heart-soul.

The subject of the story was not geography but cosmography--the layout of a divine habitation whose construction was told in dozens of different ways.

The secret to resolving the contradictions is to see through the competing mythical interpretations to the underlying forms, recognizing that different words and symbols actually describe the same thing. That is the value of the comparative approach. In this approach we can follow the evolution of a story through its transmutations as, century after century, storytellers progressively brought the gods down to earth. At the end of the process the common result was that divine and later semi-divine subjects of the myths looked very much like human beings, and the former cosmic powers emerged as “ancestors” of the nations telling the stories.

Mythic Creation--Events Seen and Heard

The Egyptian Creation Legend

It’s occurred to me that it might be useful to contrast popular interpretations of creation mythology with a much more concrete interpretation offered by our reconstruction. [Here is] a quote from E A Wallace Budge’s Legend of the Egyptian Gods. I’ll give the quote below and will use that to underscore the contrast between two different ways of seeing creation mythology. Our guide will be the comparative approach, because it's the archetypes, brought to light by comparative study, that illuminate the reliable substructure of human memory.

Here is the quote from Budge, summarizing one of the best-known Egyptian “creation” traditions:

The story of the Creation is supposed to be told by the god Neb-er-tcher, This name means the "Lord to the uttermost limit," and the character of the god suggests that the word "limit" refers to time and space, and that he was, in fact, the Everlasting God of the Universe. This god's name occurs in Coptic texts, and then he appears as one who possesses all the attributes which are associated by modern nations with God Almighty. Where and how Neb-er-tcher existed is not said, but it seems as if he was believed to have been an almighty and invisible power which filled all space. It seems also that a desire arose in him to create the world, and in order to do this he took upon himself the form of the god Khepera, who from first to last was regarded as the Creator, par excellence, among all the gods known to the Egyptians.

When this transformation of Neb-er-tcher into Khepera took place the heavens and the earth had not been created, but there seems to have existed a vast mass of water, or world-ocean, called Nu, and it must have been in this that the transformation took place. In this celestial ocean were the germs of all the living things which afterwards took form in heaven and on earth, but they existed in a state of inertness and helplessness. Out of this ocean Khepera raised himself, and so passed from a state of passiveness and inertness into one of activity. When Khepera raised himself out of the ocean Nu, he found himself in vast empty space, wherein was nothing on which he could stand. The second version of the legend says that Khepera gave being to himself by uttering his own name, and the first version states that he made use of words in providing himself with a place on which to stand. In other words, when Khepera was still a portion of the being of Neb-er-tcher, he spake the word "Khepera," and Khepera came into being. Similarly, when he needed a place whereon to stand, he uttered the name of the thing, or place, on which he wanted to stand, and that thing, or place, came into being. This spell he seems to have addressed to his heart, or as we should say, will, so that Khepera willed this standing-place to appear, and it did so forthwith. The first version only mentions a heart, but the second also speaks of a heart-soul as assisting Khepera in his first creative acts; and we may assume that he thought out in his heart what manner of thing be wished to create, and then by uttering its name caused his thought to take concrete form. This process of thinking out the existence of things is expressed in Egyptian by words which mean "laying the foundation in the heart."

In arranging his thoughts and their visible forms Khepera was assisted by the goddess Maat, who is usually regarded as the goddess of law, order, and truth, and in late times was held to be the female counterpart of Thoth, "the heart of the god Ra." In this legend, however, she seems to play the part of Wisdom, as described in the Book of Proverbs, 1 for it was by Maat that he "laid the foundation."

Reconstructing "Creation"

What Budge translates as "Lord to the uttermost limit" (a modern sounding phrase), can be practically understood as Lord of a radiant enclosure, a citadel whose boundary separated the organized habitation from the clouds of chaos threatening the kingdom from without.

What Budge interprets as the "Everlasting God of the Universe," a power that "filled all space," was not a limitless being but an object in the sky undergoing dynamic evolution as humans on earth watched in awe and terror. Many of the object's attributes can be reliably enumerated by simply following the archaic and literal meanings of Egyptian words, and comparing them to core motifs from other lands.

To call the power "invisible" is to overlook all of the attributes of the god set forth in early religious texts.

The "waters" of heaven, or "celestial ocean," having counterparts in virtually all mythologies, can be understood as the way the ancient sky looked, not the way our sky looks today. It was filled with dusty plasma and cosmic debris, all electrically alive. And it indeed looked very much like a watery abyss.

Khepera having "no place to stand" must be interpreted in terms of his prior wandering (not mentioned in this particular summary, but implied by various sources and stated explicitly in the Coffin Texts. It is this nuance, plus the oft-stated creation of a resting place that gives the language its meaning.

When the texts speak of the god bringing himself into existence, the concrete reference is to visible, explosive outflow, subsequently organized into his own external "limbs" or "attributes."

The words uttered by the god as creative speech were fiery ejecta, called "words of power" [aakhut], constituting the "primeval matter" from which the celestial habitation was constructed. Construction of the god's dwelling and his acquisition of external attributes meant exactly the same thing.

The crucial event was the god's spitting out of two powers-- the first forms of the mother goddess and warrior hero.

The enclosure arose from the first activity of the mother goddess (alternately Ma'at or Tefnut). Prior to this activity the goddess was the creator's own feminine heart (Ma'at), or his central eye (Tefnut), both meaning exactly the same thing.

Mythically and symbolically, the enclosure brought forth in this event was the god's shining "name," constituted of the luminous words or thoughts ("wisdom") shouted into existence. The name of Khepera himself derives from a root meaning to form, to become, to turn, all suggestive of the events of creation.

The resting place or foundation was the world pillar or world mountain, also constituted from the primeval matter (sea of words).

It was the activity of the god Shu (the warrior god before he became a warrior), or alternately Thoth, that brought forth the foundation or resting place of the god. Shu and Thoth were simply competing mythic interpretations of the same figure within different localities of Egypt.

Prior to his birth the god Shu sat as the pupil of the creator's eye, while Thoth meant the innermost, masculine heart of the creator's feminine heart (goddess). Again, both interpretations meant the same thing.

[This will begin a summary of key principles for understanding the creation myth, using the Egyptian story as a starting point for comparative analysis.]

Primeval Chaos

In numerous creation accounts the earliest-remembered condition is one of pervasive cosmic waters. This condition can be called “chaos,” but the meaning of the term needs to be appreciated. We often think of chaos as implying “violence” or disorder of some sort, but neither violence nor disorder are implied in the first uses of the world (though once things become more active the situation is reversed). What is implied by descriptions of the first condition is a watery expanse, an undifferentiated state, timelessness, darkness, and inactivity preceding the activity of creation. In the global mythology of creation, that pattern is sufficiently established to call for an explanation.

In early languages the words used to describe primeval chaos will tend to be words implying a negative--not in the sense of “evil” or of calamity but in the sense of absence, the state of “not.” The story of the creator-king (father of kings, the one from whom kingship descended) means the transition from chaos to order, from undifferentiated unity to diversity, from formlessness to form, from inactivity to activity, from no-time to time, from a primordial “darkness” (a pre-dawn glow, not “dark” in today’s usual meaning of the word) to a clearly defined cycle of day and night. That is what the archetypal "creation" myth is about, and in the early astronomies the planet Saturn is named as this creator-king.

But the meanings of the ancient words need to be clarified. What does "formless" mean, for example? What does "chaos," or its "yawning" aspect, mean? (Our own word for "chaos" derives from a Greek root meaning "to yawn, to gape.") The present experience offers no basis for visualizing any of the words or symbols in the archaic story itself.

In its first appearance, the state of chaos must be interpreted by contrast to what followed. Indeed, our reconstruction will invite experts on the ancient languages to ask one question in particular. Do the roots of negatives within archaic languages reveal certain nuances that would be expected under this vision of the past, but not expected under the usual theories of language formation?

In the Egyptian creation accounts, for example, the negative condition is applied to both the creator and the primeval "waters" of chaos. The god emerges from the waters and from a state of inactivity. The waters from which he appears are his own essence, but they are also his own creative outflow. The creator (Atum, Ra, Khepera) recalls his original condition of “inactivity” and the “inert watery mass” of his “father” Nu (with which he himself was closely identified). He was "alone" in these cosmic waters. He "had no companion" to work with him and he had "no resting place." The relationship of Atum to this original state of "not" is emphasized by the fact that the hieroglyphs used for his name Tem mean (among other things) "not".

You see this relationship most prominently in the use of the n-sound in the hieroglyphic system. The essence of the formless god is "water", which appears in both a singular and a plural sense. The waters are the undifferentiated "plurality" of the original state, signified by a simple wavy line, the common Egyptian glyph for the n-sound. The same glyph signifies the condition of absence. The meanings are expressed quite explicitly through virtually all of the common n-roots in the hieroglyphic system-n, ni, an, nu, nun, na, enen, nini, nenu, and a large number of variants: primeval waters, undifferentiated plurality, state of formlessness and inactivity prior to "creation,” the original condition of “not.”

When we interpret this negative condition with the help of other themes within and outside of Egypt, we discover an underlying idea--of a primordial god acquiring a clarified presence in the first activity of “creation.” And if we think entirely in terms of things seen by observers on earth, the creation legend will come alive in its rich detail.

Primeval Unity and "Great Conjunction"

Here are two vitally connected mythic themes, or archetypes, concerning the nature of primeval “chaos”:

1) In the beginning, a unified power emerged from cosmic waters to become the ruler of the sky. His name was Heaven, the self-created, all-encompassing god “One” from whom the secondary powers of creation arose.

2) At the time of creation, the primal powers were gathered together in one place--a congregation of gods in an enduring conjunction (the condition we’ve called the “Great Conjunction of the Golden Age”) .

The two themes are really just two different ways of describing the same thing. To see that this is so, it’s only necessary to think visually, in terms of things witnessed by observers on earth. It can also be helpful to take note of deep patterns born in an ancient past but echoing across history into the present, thousands of years after the original events. The patterns pose an unanswered question: is it possible to comprehend them, either in terms of what we think we know about the past, or in terms of anything that would make sense today?

Consider the two words “Saturnian” and “saturnine.” For many centuries the word Saturnian meant “pertaining to the Golden Age,” though that meaning has almost disappeared from the contemporary lexicon. The word saturnine means dark, grave, morose, or glum. It may seem impossible to reconcile the two meanings, but in fact both meanings are reconciled in the ancient story of Saturn.

For a telling clue, consider the human response when several planets (particularly Jupiter and Saturn) move into a loose alignment within a 30 degree arc in the sky. In the popular lexicon this is called a Great Conjunction or Grand Conjunction. The two most common responses are: “The Golden Age returns!” and “Doomsday is at hand!” How curious that the paradoxical Saturnian and saturnine motifs arise simultaneously. No one has ever explained why a planetary conjunction should provoke such incompatible expectations.

The answer comes from the archetypal patterns of human memory. Ancient cultures were driven by two overriding motives: 1) the desire to recover the lost age of gods and wonders, particularly its opening chapter, the Golden Age; and the Doomsday anxiety, the fear that what happened once will happen again. This was no accident in the evolution of consciousness. The two motives were inseparably connected, because Doomsday, the “mother of all catastrophes,” was nothing else than the violent end of the Golden Age, a devastating interruption of the age of the gods.

And here is the punchline that gives meaning to the paradox. The condition that held the Golden Age in place was an alignment of planets; Doomsday was immediately preceded by an exemplary conjunction, one that had no counterpart in later movements of the planets. This alignment was not something simply dreamt up by later storytellers, then holding humanity in its grip for thousands of years.

In today’s language, a “Great Conjunction” requires planets to stand together within a 30 degree window in the sky, which means an arc 60 times the diameter of the Moon. In contrast, the “conjunction” described by the Saturn hypothesis, supported by thousands of pictures carved on stone and by countless myths and symbols of the gods, was a “perfect conjunction.” In its phases of “perfection,” the planets stood on a straight line or shared axis.

Nothing of this sort ever occurs with three or more remote planets in our own time, and even one planet occluding another is extraordinarily rare because the planets do not all move on the same plane around the Sun. Computer simulations say we will not see Jupiter actually occlude the sphere of Saturn for thousands of years. And three planets so aligned can be ruled out entirely.

So the contrast between the modern meaning of the "Great Conjunction" and the powerful, mythically-rooted theme is profound. The myth of the Great Conjunction could not have been inspired by observations of planets on their present orbits.

As readers familiarize themselves with the archetypal underpinnings of the reconstruction, it will become clear that the principle of conjunction was expressed through myriad symbols and mythic interpretations. Apart from the principle of planets in an enduring alignment, the themes are not even comprehensible. When we speak of Venus as the central eye or heart-soul of a celestial power astronomically identified as Saturn close to the Earth, we are speaking of a perfect conjunction unthinkable in our time, and made "all the more so" by the smaller sphere of Mars, stationed in front of Venus and on the same axis, as the mythic "pupil" of the eye.

Step into this reconstruction, and it should not surprise you that ancient stargazers continually looked to the heavens for some sign of a restoration of the Great Conjunction--or a sign that Doomsday, the culminating event of the Great Conjunction, was drawing near. In the third century BC, the Babylonian astronomer-priest Berossos described the condition that preceded the destruction of the world by fire, saying that a similar condition preceded the destruction of the world by flood. The Berossos account, given by Seneca in his Naturales Questiones, describes the planets “so arranged in the same path that a straight line can pass through all their orbs.” (I’ve placed the full quote below.*)

When seen through the lens of present experience, a perfect conjunction of this sort is patently absurd, raising the question as to how the idea could have registered so deeply. By what reasoning did ancient priests or astronomers conjure a connection either to a "golden age" or to the arrival of Doomsday?

The connected traditions are exactly what we should expect if the reconstructed events did indeed occur. I’ve spoken repeatedly of the primeval Unity, the state of the ancient “sun” god before the events remembered as “creation.” That first condition has nothing to do with the Sun we know today, but describes a great sphere hanging stationary in the polar sky and invoked as “heaven” when “heaven was close to the earth.” Of course, there are many variations in the language of these events, but the archetypal theme is of an ancient god conceived as ”the One, the All”-- whose very identity arises from the Great Conjunction. No abstractions are involved. The celestial bodies standing in conjunction--in the very terms described by Berossos--are the Unity. By their alignment or juxtaposition, they are visually united within the sphere of the all-containing god. Thus, the word conjunction, Latin conjunctus, from the root jungere, means "to unite", "to be joined or yoked as one." The language of myth and the "language of language" are completely coherent.

And need I add that this radical meaning of conjunction lends no credence whatsoever to the popular idea of a loose or fragmented alignment of remote bodies?

The Great Conjunction of Primeval Times

David Talbott
______________________

*Quote from Seneca, Naturales Questiones:
“Berossos, who interpreted the prophecies of Bel, attributes these disasters (the end of the world and its aftermath) to the movements of the planets. He is so certain of this that he can determine a date for the Conflagration and the Great Flood. He maintains that the earth will burn whenever all the planets, which now have different orbits, converge in Cancer and are so arranged in the same path that a straight line can pass through all their orbs, and that there will be a further great flood, when the same planets so converge in Capricorn.”

Philo Dibble facsimile. Taught to him by Joseph Smith (supposedly)

[Ymarsakar]

Genesis did not make sense to me until FE theory was applied. Also 1st Enoch's description of the sun traveling in tracks and entering portals also didn't make any sense. Until the FE theory app where one can see the sun move across the lines.

That does not mean I automatically accept that the scriptures are 100% correct. I do not.

But Shawn has pierced the veil in one aspect at least, and that is part of the nature of this reality being an optical illusion. It is not what you are told it is. You must decipher the mystery on your own. Don't trust the science either ; )

[SempiternalHarbinger]

Genesis did not make sense to me until FE theory was applied. Also 1st Enoch's description of the sun traveling in tracks and entering portals also didn't make any sense. Until the FE theory app where one can see the sun move across the lines.

That does not mean I automatically accept that the scriptures are 100% correct. I do not.

But Shawn has pierced the veil in one aspect at least, and that is part of the nature of this reality being an optical illusion. It is not what you are told it is. You must decipher the mystery on your own. Don't trust the science either ; )

Agree to disagree. But yea, I sure as hell don't trust modern mainstream theoretical science. We agree on that.

Food for thought and along the same line as my posts above... Enoch is completely encompassed in ancient world mythology. Similar traditions, myths, rituals, and symbols, that all tell the same universal story. Once you begin TO NAME THE POINTS OF AGREEMENTS you will see that there are HUNDREDS OF THEM. It would never be evident at the surface, individually, in isolation, but dig down to the substructure of human memory and let the events shine through by virtue of points of agreement. Dig deep and test it. And that's the thing, comparative mythology disproves basically every flat-earth interpretation of the book of Enoch at every point.

Here is another of many examples where a comparative approach brings clarity and understanding where it would otherwise be impossible...

The Book of Genesis says the creation of "Light" happened on the first day...The creation accounts explain that light was created to dissipate the darkness on the first ‘day’ or event of creation. “Let there be light, and there was light.”

One vital piece of evidence that expounds on the Light that was the first creation comes from the Book of the Secrets of Enoch in which Hugh Nibley says is very reminiscent of the Book of Enoch penned by Joseph Smith. ("A Strange Thing in the Land", Return of the book Enoch)

But we will let another great comparative mythologist, Dwardu Cardona do the explaining and make the connection for us. The late Cardona is one of the best comparative mythologists of our times.

...Enoch contains much that is of value in understanding the religio-cosmological beliefs of ancient times.

The "Book of the Secrets of Enoch", in fact, describes the "Creation" of the primordial light in a somewhat fuller version than does the Book of Genesis and it is from it's pages we learn of god's light being emitted by the "uncoiling" of Adoil. -Dwardu Cardona

Cardona further explains that "the name 'Adoil, also 'Idoil,' derives from the Hebrew 'hand of god,' that is the hand of El." Cardona indicates that 'El' was one of the ancient Hebrew names for Saturn. Saturn is singled out as the source of the first light of creation. And thus, Saturn was honored as the "Creator" in the myths and religious traditions of cultures around the entire ancient world including the Hebrews. Thus, The Hebrew Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, was the day of Saturn, and they named the Sun accordingly.

The Light that was first in the creation came not only from another orb but from the planet Saturn. The same orb that the ancients MISTOOK for the creator and which catastrophists today recognize as the planet Saturn in its earliest stage of development. In ancient times, Saturn was known by many names... best sun, sun star, god star, light god, father god, the sun of the night, and the creator king to name a few.

Here is a direct quote from Cardona’s great book God Star, which is most revealing. He quotes the first chapter of Genesis substituting English words with the original Hebrew at critical junctures:

“In the beginning Elohim create the shemayim and ‘eretz. And ‘eretz was tohu wa bohu, and darkness was on the surface of the tehom. And the ruach of Elohim moved upon the face of the mayim.”

“… Elohim was one of the ancient names of Saturn. Shemayim are “the heavens” — in the plural. Eretz is the word usually translated “Earth,” but it more properly means “land.” The words tohu wa bohu are traditionally translated as “without form and void” or “void and empty.” The tehom is understood as a watery abyss — the deep. Ruach means “spirit” or “soul,” but also “wind,” while the mayim are merely “the waters” — also in the plural.

“… the words of Genesis actually tell us … that, “in the beginning” — that is, as far back as man can remember — Saturn fashioned the “land” — which originally meant the land of the gods [Elohim] — which was formless and empty, while the “spirit,” or “wind,” of the same Saturn moved over the darkened waters.”

"The prophetic symbolism of our scriptures retains the essence of all those ancient archetypes and subsequent elaborations. Of course, without a firm and thorough grasp of the origin of that symbolism and its proper use, we stumble around in the dark as we attempt to understand our own scripture. We are as blind men." -Anthony Larson

The ONLY way to validate and understand Josephs's Egyptian Book of Abraham (as well as myths in scripture) is once again through a comparative approach to mythology. Strictly in isolation, we come across a plethora of problems, so many in fact that it is easy to discredit it and call Joesph a false prophet. In isolation, when it stands all by itself, the EBOA and Joseph Smith are very vulnerable. However, bring in ancient world mythology and it becomes crystal clear Joseph knew exactly what he was talking about considering it matches so many points of archetypes and motifs in world mythology. The Facsimiles and the text, in particular KOLOB, match every single point in world mythology and Talbott's polar configuration. KOLOB = The Polar Configuration! The great conjunction. This is why the Electric Universe and the Thunderbolts project reached out to Nibley on many occasions even inviting him to speak at conferences. It's just too bad Nibley was too old at that point.

[Shawn Henry]

I doubt you read anything I posted after the first sentence. It's all good. At least some people read it, got something out of it, and took it the way it was intended.

Of course, I read what you write my friend. That's a common courtesy I pay everyone when they quote me. I didn't watch that hour and fifteen minute video, however.

Perhaps I'm loyal to the scriptural accounts of creation to a fault, but I can't place non-scriptural accounts in the same category, not by a long shot. They are quite clear that the above waters were still up there even after the flood. I won't let science's arm of flesh tell me otherwise. That's just me though.

[Shawn Henry]

I will just step back. Have a nice day.

Marc, you're no fun!

People like you who read the scriptures with the spirit are the very type we need in this conversation. Too many place the arm of flesh above science.

If you are ever up for the challenge, ponder the PoGP creation accounts and envision in your mind what is literally being said about the divided waters. Until then, you have a great day as well brother.

[marc]

I will just step back. Have a nice day.

Marc, you're no fun!

People like you who read the scriptures with the spirit are the very type we need in this conversation. Too many place the arm of flesh above science.

If you are ever up for the challenge, ponder the PoGP creation accounts and envision in your mind what is literally being said about the divided waters. Until then, you have a great day as well brother.

I can have fun. I'll see your PoGP scriptures and raise you a Book of Mormon scripture:

Helaman 12:15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

[gradles21]

I will just step back. Have a nice day.

Marc, you're no fun!

People like you who read the scriptures with the spirit are the very type we need in this conversation. Too many place the arm of flesh above science.

If you are ever up for the challenge, ponder the PoGP creation accounts and envision in your mind what is literally being said about the divided waters. Until then, you have a great day as well brother.

I can have fun. I'll see your PoGP scriptures and raise you a Book of Mormon scripture:

Helaman 12:15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

You have to include the whole chapter here, it's talking about the Lord's power and how he can make the earth move if he commanded it. And if he did command it, because the earth would be moving, it would look as if the sun was standing still.

[marc]

Marc, you're no fun!

People like you who read the scriptures with the spirit are the very type we need in this conversation. Too many place the arm of flesh above science.

If you are ever up for the challenge, ponder the PoGP creation accounts and envision in your mind what is literally being said about the divided waters. Until then, you have a great day as well brother.

I can have fun. I'll see your PoGP scriptures and raise you a Book of Mormon scripture:

Helaman 12:15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

You have to include the whole chapter here, it's talking about the Lord's power and how he can make the earth move if he commanded it. And if he did command it, because the earth would be moving, it would look as if the sun was standing still.

Nope. That's too much fun for one day. Besides, he's referring to the Lord's power to make the Earth move "back" along its course, not move out of some static position, what you are thinking. Ok, I'm out.