Freethought Nation

That's only one cosmogony though, the one from Hermopolis.

The one at Heliopolis depicts Atum as being the first god, who created himself out of a ben-ben stone, then masturbated and ejaculated his sperm across space and that is what created the universe.

In many texts, Atum is just a form of Re and they are often listed in composite form as Atum-Re. Re being Khepri in the morning and then Atum at evening, the idea being conveyed is that, as the first god, he is the eldest of gods and so dies of old age and descends into the underworld at his setting.

So in this cosmogony, since Re is Atum, Re IS the first of all gods.

Yet is still a sun god.

But at Sais, there was yet another cosmogony. Neith was said to be the first, primordial self-existent deity, and that she gave a virgin birth to Re(naturally, since there were no other gods around). And yet there, her offspring is also explicitly said to be the sun.

Yet at Memphis, Ptah was the first self-existent creator god. And he was later merged with Osiris & Sokar.

And yet at Thebes, Amun was the first self-existent creator god, and like Atum, was merged with Re, hence Amun-Re, thus again forming a cosmogony in which Re is the first creator god.


Like I said in the other thread, beware of being too linear with Egyptian religion & myth, because they themselves were not so linear either.

Obviously the actual order of creation as we might know it today was either not known and/or not of much concern to them.

They had no problem playing Mr. Potato-Head with their gods & myths.

So, the key phrase in your post being- "If we are to belive this", to which I would ask

"Which one"?

That's obviously rhetorical, as I believe none of them.

But I see a lot of inconsistency in the logic of your conclusion.



The ONLY conclusion? How do you figure that? Could simply be that the sun WAS created before everything else, since Re was created first there, and, well, he irrefutably represents the sun(as I demonstrated in the other thread with but a small sample of the countless primary texts showing as much).

I mean, for instance, you concede that the Ogdoad were depicted with the heads of snakes & frogs. Yet we know that in reality, snakes & frogs didn't come along until WAY after the beginning of this current universe. So do we follow in your logic and deduce that the Ogdoad then are not to be associated with frogs & snakes? If so, what do we do then with the countless artifacts that clearly depict them as such?

Re himself is often depicted as a falcon. Yet falcons likewise came WAY after the beginning of this universe. Do we then follow your example & disassociate Re from falcons? If so, what are we to do about the countless artifacts & inscriptions that depict him as such?

I'm having trouble following your reasoning through to your conclusion.

@GA,
AD 1: Agreed.

AD 2: AD 3: and AD 4: In my opinion there are some difficulties interpreting these deities because of some cultural period of overlays. The best way to distinguish between the deities is to focus on their qualities and attributes and consort.

Besides this, when the Mother Goddess is said to be the first of creator deities, this mean in my opinion, that “she” is the first deity that creates everything in its physical form – whereas and the first God is the light that initiate this physical formation/creation.

AD 5: I think the opposite. When talking of a Story of Creation, it is of course very important to tell this story as correct as possible. In order to fully grasp these stories, one has to accept that they are dealing with real cosmological knowledge and not just “hear sayings” and “mumble jumble”.

AD 6: In my opinion the Story of Creation deals with the then known Universe of the Milky Way. I think we can agree that also the Egyptians mention deities connected to the Milky Way. Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way_%28mythology%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_na ... _Milky_Way

Ancient and Modern Milky Way comparison of Creation
The modern cosmology states that the Sun and the solar system were formatted when a local molecular cloud of gas and dust suddenly collapsed via gravity. Taking this for granted, it could very well be right that the Sun was first in a story of creation.

But: The solar system is an integrated orbiting part of the Milky Way and it must therefore have a logical formation story connection to the Milky Way itself. As I read the Odoad telling of the Primeval Waters and Elements, these in modern terms are a telling of the 99.99 % Hydrogen and Helium and 0.01 % dust/”metallic elements”.

Again: The modern cosmologists states that everything in our galaxy is attracted toward the centre of our galaxy, whereas the Stories of Creation suppose the very opposite. Everything is created in the Garden of Eden, where the Tree of Life is standing in the middle. When/if imaging this garden as the Milky Way centre and imaging the telling of expulsion from this garden, this allegorically states an opposite movement in the galaxy compared to the hypothesis of the modern cosmologists.

- The modern hypothesis of the supposed attraction towards the Milky Way centre is based on the Newtonian law of celestial movement around a gravity centre. This law is contradicted by the cosmologists themselves via the so called “galactic rotation anomaly” where the orbiting motion of celestial objects in our galaxy is almost of the same speed instead of the hypothetically supposed faster orbiting velocity the nearer the centre. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rot ... he_problem

- This contradicts directly the Newtonian law via instrumental observations and confirms that the movements of celestial objects in our galaxy must be the very opposite: From within the rotating galactic centre and out in the galactic arms, confirming the allegorical “expulsion out from the Garden of Eden”.

Now: If the Stories of Creation is correct assuming an outgoing creation movement in our galaxy and the solar system is an integrated rotation and formation part in our galaxy, the solar system must logically, considering its actual position in the galaxy, have been created after the First Light (Ra/Atum etc.) appeared as a first "nuclear fusion light" on the Primeval Mound in the galactic centre, quite in agreement with the Ogdoad Primeval telling, I think.

AD 7: When different deities change their appearance and attributes, this is because “rotation deities”, as the Milky Way contours are, can be observed in different positions seen from the Earth from the same position of observation. They can be seen standing; flying; diving and laying/dying/dead – and the mythological telling of deity qualities; attributes and movement of course also changes in order to tell of this rotational movement in the night Sky.

So all rotational celestial deities of both gender can therefore have different names accordingly to an actual observation.

AD 8: I hope this reply can make it all a little clearer.

NB: I quite agree with Laird Scranton and some few others, in interpreting the myths, especially the Creation Myths, as real cosmological knowledge and it is my firm belief that the ancient telling superceeds the modern one in may ways, especially because of a cyclic understanding of the movements in the then known part of the Universe.

Let me cut in here Ivar. Pay close attention to the logic. You're agreeing with Scranton about the creation myths being metaphorical for an advanced physical and cosmological knowledge mysteriously obtained and documented in ancient mythology. And you differed with me over the flat earth cosmology of the near east in favor of believing that the ancients were far more advanced than to believe such a thing. Now after all of that, you just posted a comment on the "then known universe."

What is the "then known universe?"

You've said elsewhere that it is the Milky Way because they thought that is the extent of the universe in the early periods.

So, ancient knowledge advanced to that of modern day cosmology and a claim that all the ancients knew of the universe was the Milky Way galaxy is a complete contradiction. If we are to stick to the reasoning of advanced knowledge in the ancient world rivaling that of modern day cosmology then we are therefore stuck with a claim that the ancients knew even more of the extent of the universe than we know currently, not less of the extent of the universe.

And if you're ideas concerning spiritual revelation about the creation of the universe is correct, then we should expect to find in mythology a straight-forward answer to the mystery of what was going on before the Big Bang, whether or not it was caused by a white hole where matter was exiting from a black hole causing the current expansion, etc. etc. Because that's what science is on the brink of right now at the level of our modern cosmological inquiries. And this involved a lot more than believing that the Milky Way galaxy is the entire universe mind you. So there's a real big problem with logic leaping around from here to there without carefully considering the implications.

If the ancient seers only understood the universe to be the galaxy = they were less advanced than we are right now.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

AD 1: There are 2 answers to this question:
a) They obviously knew of the primeval elements that is everywhere.
b) Accordingly to the myths of Creation, we only can find myths regarding Milky Way as the extent of their world picture.

AD 2: Again 2 answers:
a) The ancient extent was most certainly lesser than modern science.
b) The ancient understanding was better, as explained with the outward going motion in the Milky Way and in reply on AD 3 below.

AD 3: No there isn´t any logical leap problems here. The ancient understanding was/is cyclical. There is no beginning or end, but IN the whole Universe; everything is eternally changing between assembling and dissolving. NOT the Universe itself, but all of the gasses and elements in it. (Deities of creation and “destruction”/dissolving) So this is also the ancient answer to the "mystery of Big Bang" - there wasn´t any Big Bang.

When the ancient describes the creation, this always begins with the telling of the primordial elements and then “it begins”.

But this “beginning” is just a telling technique in order to describe how everything is principally created – whether it goes for only the Milky Way or more. They describe the very principles of creation and not a beginning as such.

I think the modern cosmology is in deep troubles regarding understanding the universe as such – and they certainly not have understood the Milky Way or the solar system formation, which all the added “dark matter/antimatter and dark energy this and that” clearly tells: They don´t know of the basically principles and therefore they are forced to add this and that “black magic” to compensate every time they are surprised and contradicted by new measurements and discoveries.

AD 4: They were perhaps lesser advanced in the extent of their world picture, but without any doubts more advanced in the understanding of it, mainly because of their cyclical world perspective and their intuitive feeling of the natures elements at all.

How then do you suppose that while being lesser advanced they understood more about the universe? The only reason they had a cyclic cosmology is because if you look around the earth, there's cycles everywhere. It seems more logical than not to assume that the universe it cyclic and eternal from that standpoint. If that is true about the universe, then it could have been easily deduced just by a simple observation of the earth and applying the same logic to the heavens. No advanced science or special revelation or anything like that. And they would also think that the universe is what can be seen with the naked eye, which is the stars within our galaxy. So we should expect that they thought the galaxy was the universe, and that the universe is cyclic and eternal for simple natural observation reasons. If that turns out to be empirically true, as concerns the universe being infinite and eternal, then that just stems from how trustworthy simple observation on earth applies to the whole of reality.

If people like Scranton are correct about very developed and specific scientific knowledge of the universe, then some one in the ancient myth making world would have known that we are currently existing among clusters and super clusters of galaxies just like our own, regardless of whether the BB standar model is an accurate accounting for the origins of it all. There should be data about the formation of not only our own galaxy but the countless others of which we are a small part. Is there such data to be found Ivar?

Also, how does the black hole at the center of the MW galaxy (and all galaxies) factor into your reasoning? Are you asserting that our solar system is the result of material being flung out and away from the gravitational center of the super massive black hole which is said to be the galactic center? Or are you saying that there is no super massive black hole to found at the galactic center but rather something else entirely?

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

AD 1: When studying Milky Way myths, I haven´t found myths that goes beyond the MW Myths – except of the Primeval Deities and of the creator/destructor deities.

AD 2: First: Via knowledge of the deities of the Primeval Waters which is everywhere, they could have an idea of something more than the Milky Way, and maybe one can find some mythical telling and symbols of this. Secondly, when having spiritual experiences they very well could have knowledge of more than of the Milky Way. Thirdly, in the telling of creation, the Primeval Waters is mentioned to “fill the voids and abyss” which also could indicate a larger knowledge of the observable universe than the Milky Way.

There could be some possible symbols of “a greater world picture”, but for the time being I´m focusing mostly on the MW Mythology itself, so such a research must be another time.

AD 3: I certainly and surely go for no black holes or objects in galaxies. The very "Galactic rotation anomaly" contradicts this very clearly. If there was a heavy attracting object in the galactic centre, the objects in the galactic surrounding should orbit faster and faster the nearer the centre - but the don´t!

In my opinion of galactic formation, we are talking of an initial cyclical thermodynamic motion (set off by a cosmic light explosion) with first an inwards turning “assembling” where molecular gasses and dust is concentrated more and more in the swirl and falling into the galactic funnel where it is sorted out and melted together in larger spheres in the centre.

These larger spheres of gas and dust are then slung horizontally out from the centre via the galactic bars and further out in the galactic arms as mini-galaxies; star systems and stars and planets of all kind.

With such a galactic formation process, we are talking of a cyclical formation of assembling and distributing in a flowing inwards and outwards motion. The modern cosmologists can only describe the first inwards turning process (by pure luck) – and then they reach a full cosmological explanation stop when gasses and dust reaches “the event horizon” in the so called “black hole” where they begin the pure guesswork and adding epicycles to already scientifically contradicted hypothesis as for instants the galactic rotation anomaly.

BTW: The myths states that the primeval element are interacting in the creation of our Milky Way and the first physical entity is “a fierce light” in the centre on the Primeval Mound = Ra, “sitting on the benben”. This indicates a cyclical creation with the result of melting everything together, a process that creates a great (nuclear) light and create everything else in our galaxy afterwards as described above. This is clearly a cyclical creation process in my mind.

I've read Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened" and have followed along with a few alternative cosmologies. The EU is one of them. The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) physics and cosmology is another. I think that the WSM is the most promising that I've seen so far, but there are details to be delt with: http://www.quantummatter.com

The solution to the particle / wave duality and many other paradoxes is offered at the above website. Now of course having read Scranton I couldn't help but analyze the creation myths of the Dogon and Egypt for any signs of knowing about the WSM. And of course Scranton pulls out what appears to be a knowledge of matter behaving both as a wave and as a particle from Egyptian and Dogon mythology. It could be wishful thinking on his part, it could be whatever. But for the sake of investigation I went through all of his work with the idea that maybe, for a number of reasons, there could be something in these myths which can potentially overturn modern cosmology. Or at least something that radically changes the standard model cosmology. Now the result of the WSM is that space has the properties of a continuous wave medium, infinite and eternal, and matter is caused by the wave motions of space. Very different from point particle physics and the standard model cosmology which is built up from the point particle concept foundation.

Now straight-away I had to consider the "waters of chaos," "celestial abyss", "primeval waters" and other designations in mythology as possible metaphors for space as an infinite wave medium substance common to everything in existence, eternally. How they would have known this is difficult to pin down, but I just wondered if it's there in the myths. The formation of a sub-atomic particle according to the WSM model involves the inward and outward wave motion of the wave medium substance of space. A spherical standing wave center is then created and vibrates in the wave medium of space itself. This is the explanation for electron formation, for instance. The point particle is merely an appearance. And all electricity being electron based is therefore wave based and this consumes other theories like the EU. If the universe is electrical it's only because it's wave medium based and the existence of an electron depends on the wave medium properties of space. And there are reasons for thinking that this might be part of the mythology that Scranton sees as going beyond our own current knowledge.

If we're going to be knee deep in cosmological and mythological speculation, then what the hell, let's have a good time with it.


So, basically you have the entire galaxy bahaving on large scale the way Milo Wolff has deduced the formation of sub-atomic particles to behave with the inward and outward wave motions (see the spherical standing wave / particle diagram): http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simp ... eality.htm

When the first empirical photograph of an electron was captured it came out looking something like what the WSM theorists were expecting:


Interesting enough. So then Ra is the galactic center that creates stars and planets and sends them out. If so, then Ra is both the galactic center and also a part of the star which spun out of the galactic center right? Isn't that how Ra could be depicted as both creator and the rising and setting sun in the written record and primary sources? I still don't see how you can say that Ra is not Sol even with this elaborate alternative cosmological model you've given. What comes out of the central light, and in turns gives off light itself, is necessarily of the central light isn't it? If so then we have an explanation for finding Ra as the central sun at times and the local sun at others, the local sun / sol being a mini version of the central sun and both being described as Ra in mythology.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

AD 1: Interesting site that demands further studying.

AD 2: Did you find any interesting possible clues?

AD 3: I´m not in any doubts with this. I would even go so far to say that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is and contains the primeval watery elementary deities.

AD 4: Nice to see how others have come to these natural conclusions.

AD 5: Very interesting reading and confirmations indeed, focusing on the simple and natural and just my way of looking at things.

AD 6: I would turn this around a little bit and say: Everything in the galactic surroundings is a part of both the interaction between the elementary deities that create Ra, the galactic light, who, together with the female principles, the Great Mother Goddess, format everything physical in the galaxy.

That is: We have the male principle of Light and the female principle of Matter that works together. On can also compare this with a sperm that gives motion to an egg cell which begin to grow and divide – until the foetus form have reached its critical mass and a baby is born. We have first an inwards motion of light and later on an outwards motion of formatted matter. This is the very same process with a formation of a galaxy, really.

AD 7: Imagine the total creative force of the MW centre (Ra) – and compare this to the creative powers of the Sun. Ra has obviously created the Sun; the Sun is allegorical a son of Ra.

Just as Ra has created everything in the galaxy, the Sun is creating (really re-creating) everything on the Earth. The qualities of Ra and the Sun can be relatively compared, but there is the total creative force and the whole creative process in difference.

Ra is the MW-central light and has this specific initial role of powers in the myth of Creation and cannot be directly compared to the Sun as such. Therefore one cannot connect the myths of major superior creator deities that have created the Sun.

As stated several times: The rigt mythical/cosmological telling shal and must be connected to the rigt celestial object - and vice versa.

A Solar Myth can only be connected to the seasonal rhythms of the Earth and the seasonal biological and agricultural creation. But of course the Sun has its original powers from the MW-centre and has supposedly still a creative magnetic field connection to the MW centre.

I had a feeling you'd go that direction.

So then do you think the Egyptians were flat out wrong for writings about Ra rising in the morning at setting in the evening? GodAlmighty put the primary source evidence from the written record on the table. It was the Egyptians themselves who were associating Ra with the sun, whether or not there exists a rendition where Ra is the MW center creative force.

That's why I'm saying that one must have to connect both aspects. On one hand you see evidence of Ra being the MW galactic center but there's an entire body of evidence clearly placing Ra as the daily sun too. So then how does one get the right celestial object correct without concluded that there's a two fold meaning involved with the symbolism of Ra?

That's really it Ivar. The above paragraph shows a working knowledge of the interconnection between the MW galactic center and the sun (Sol) of our solar system. The Egyptians clearly speak of Ra as symbolic of the daily sun. You see evidence of Ra used symbolically to represent the creative force of the MW galactic center. A parallel discussion could easily come in the form of the theological argument about Yahweh and Yeshua / Jehovah and Jesus. How can Jesus be here, a man, and yet the God of the universe? That question has caused all sorts of confusion in theology. But the storyline mythology does present such an equation. The two are considered one. And Jesus is given solar attribute throughout the story. So it's really about the sun and God interconnected as one.

Now of course turning to the MW galactic center and our sun (Sol) the same type of logic applies. One might say, "How can Ra be the daily sun and yet the creative force of the MW galactic center at the same time?" Perhaps because the myth concerns an interconnected relationship between the two things being represented in the mythological storyline. Ra of initial creation and Ra the sustaining life giving force of creation. Thus giving way to all of the compound names for Ra / Re...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

Also, I'd like to post this visual of standard model galaxy formation:

I wonder how different a simulation of your interpretation of Egyptian galaxy formation would look? Have you considered making a simulation or getting someone to make one for you? It may help to visualize the process you're proposing.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

I would like to elaborate a little about Amun; Atum; Ra and Re.

Amun:
Amun represented the essential and hidden, whilst in Ra he represented revealed divinity. As the creator deity "par excellence", he was the champion of the poor or troubled and central to personal piety. Amun was self created, without mother and father, and during the New Kingdom he became the greatest expression of transcendental deity in Egyptian theology. He was not considered to be imminent within creation nor was creation seen as an extension of himself.

Notes: Amun hidden; creator “par excellence” self created.

As the cult of Amun grew in importance, Amun became identified with the chief deity who was worshipped in other areas during that period, the sun god Ra. This identification led to another merger of identities, with Amun becoming Amun-Ra. In the Hymn to Amun-Ra he is described as "Lord of truth, father of the gods, maker of men, creator of all animals, Lord of things that are, creator of the staff of life.

Notes: Chief deity; became identified with the chief deity who was worshipped in other areas during that period, the sun god Ra; led to other identities with Amun becoming Amun Ra.

Atum:

“Atum is one of the most important and frequently mentioned deities from earliest times, as evidenced by his prominence in the Pyramid Texts, where he is portrayed as both a creator and father to the king. He is usually depicted as a man wearing either the royal head-cloth or the dual white and red crown of Upper Egypt, and Lower Egypt, reinforcing his connection with kingship. Sometimes he also is shown as a serpent, the form which he returns to at the end of the creative cycle and also occasionally as a mongoose, lion, bull, lizard, or ape.

Notes: Shown as a serpent, the form which he returns to at the end of the creative cycle

In the Heliopolitan creation myth established in the sixth dynasty, Atum was considered to be the first god, having created himself, sitting on a mound (benben) (or identified with the mound itself), from the primordial waters (Nu). Early myths state that Atum created the god Shu and goddess Tefnut from spitting her out of his mouth.

Notes: Being the first god in creation myth; created himself; sitting on a mound (benben); or identified as the mound itself; from the primordial waters.

In the Old Kingdom the Egyptians believed that Atum lifted the dead king's soul from his pyramid to the starry heavens. He was also a solar deity, associated with the primary sun god Ra. Atum was linked specifically with the evening sun, while Ra was associated more with the morning sun

Notes: Solar deity; associated with the primary sun god Ra; linked especially with the evening sun; Ra more with the morning sun.

Ra/Re:
One of the most important deities in Egyptian mythology, the sun god Ra (or Re) was the supreme power in the universe. The giver of life, he was often merged with the god Amun as Amun-Ra. Some myths present Ra as the head of the Egyptian pantheon and ruler of all the gods. Others say that he was the only god and that all other deities were merely aspects of Ra.

Notes: supreme power in the universe; giver of life; often merged with the god Amun; ruler of all gods; the only god; other gods merely aspects of Ra.

In some creation myths, Ra emerged from either a primeval mound or primeval waters as Ra-Atum and created Tefnut (Moisture) and Shu (Air). From this first divine pair sprang the sky goddess Nut and earth god Geb, who created the universe and gave birth to the gods Osiris*, Isis*, Set*, Nephthys, and Horus.

Notes: Ra emerged from either a Primeval Mound or Primeval Waters as Ra-Atum; created Tefnut and Shu; Nut and Geb created the universe (MW in my opinion).

(Tefnut):

Tefnut is a daughter of the solar god Atum-Ra. Married to her brother, Shu, she is mother of Nut, the sky and Geb, the earth.

Notes: Nut represents the Milky Way; (not sure that Geb represents the Earth)
There are a number of variants to the myth of the creation of Tefnut and her twin brother Shu. In all versions, Tefnut is the product of parthenogenesis, and all involve some variety of bodily fluid.

Notes: product of “bodily fluid” parthenogenesis.

Discussion:

Amun:
1) Notes: Amun hidden; creator “par excellence” self created;
2) Notes: Chief deity; became identified with the chief deity who was worshipped in other areas during that period, as the sun god Ra; led to other identities with Amun becoming Amun Ra.

Comment: Amun and Ra are identical and possibly a result of cultural overlay of deities.

Atum:
1) Shown as a serpent, the form which he returns to at the end of the creative cycle.
2) Notes: Being the first god in creation myth; created himself; sitting on a mound (benben); or identified as the mound itself; from the primordial waters.
3) Note: Solar deity; associated with the primary sun god Ra; linked especially with the evening sun; Re more with the morning sun.

Comment: Atum and Ra are identical as primary deities and having the same attributes and qualities.

Ra/Re:
1) Notes: supreme power in the universe; giver of life; often merged with the god Amun; ruler of all gods; the only god; other gods merely aspects of Ra.
2) Notes: Ra emerged from either a Primeval Mound or Primeval Waters as Ra-Atum; created Tefnut and Shu; Nut and Geb created the universe (MW in my opinion).

Comment: Ra/Re are merged with Amun. Both emerged directly from the Primeval Waters and connected to the Primeval Mound. Other gods are merely aspects of Ra/Re. Notice that Ra/Re also is identified with Atum as Ra-Atum, the deity sitting on the Primeval Mound, the first physical creation in the Milky Way from where the Milky Way goddess also emerge and give form to everything in our galaxy.

Which is exactly what the Ogdoad states: “Together the four concepts represent the primal, fundamental state of the beginning, they are what always was. In the myth, however, their interaction ultimately proved to be unbalanced, resulting in the arising of a new entity.

When the entity opened, it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside. After a long interval of rest, Ra, together with the other deities, created all other things”.

Ra is the first fiery light of the Central Light – not the Sun/Sol. Ra is directly connected to the creation of the Milky Way.

(Tefnut):
1) Notes: Nut represents the Milky Way; (I´m not sure that Geb represents the Earth)
2) Notes: product of “bodily fluid” parthenogenesis.

Comment: Ra created Tefnut who give birth to Nut, the Milky Way Goddess:
“Hathor had a complex relationship with Ra, in one myth she is his eye and considered his daughter but later, when Ra assumes the role of Horus with respect to Kingship, she is considered Ra's mother. She absorbed this role from another cow goddess 'Mht wrt' ("Great flood") who was the mother of Ra in a creation myth and carried him between her horns. As a mother she gave birth to Ra each morning on the eastern horizon and as wife she conceives through union with him each day.

Hathor, along with the goddess Nut, was associated with the Milky Way during the third millennium B.C. when, during the fall and spring equinoxes, it aligned over and touched the earth where the sun rose and fell.”

- I think this says it all.

My conclusion:
1) Amun; Atum; Ra and Re are all identical and merged together via cultural overlaying or by competitions of deities.
2) They are all linked directly to the Primeval Waters and to the Primordial Mound
3) The Primordial Mound is the symbol for the Milky Way centre and the First Great Light that:
4) Very clearly accordingly to the explanations above, has create all other gods/goddesses and everything else in the then known world of our Milky Way.
5) The connection to the Milky Way is furthermore emphasised by the Serpent symbol and of course by the direct Nut goddess of the Milky Way.
6) There is NO way that these deities can be directly connected to the Sun, because it all tells of the creation before (the primeval waters) and of the first firm land (the primeval mound) and the first deities that clearly are connected to creation of everything else in the Milky Way.
7) Connecting the seasonal Sun as supposedly being Ra/Re/Amun/Atum directly to the First Deities of the Primeval Waters; to the First Supreme Light and to the First Land of the Primeval Mound where Ra/Re/Amun/Atum resides, is in fact to claim Mytho-Cosmologically/Astrotheologically that the Sun has created everything in the Milky Way - on a creational stage where the Sun even wasn´t created?

This is what says everything. If you call Ra the MW galactic center first light and other gods are merely aspects of Ra aspects of the first light - then there is a direct connection between the first light and the seasonal and daily sun right there in your own post. Especially at times when the sun rises in alignment with the MW galactic center, for instance.

I just watched a lengthy program this afternoon about the Mayan creation myth and 12/21/12. This program was full of correspondence between the central MW galactic light and our seasons of the sun. It's clear enough that the MW was important to the Mayans and others. But there are a lot of errors to wade through too. Never once did they mention that the perfect winter solstice alignment already happened and we're on the back end of it now, in strict astronomical terms. Everyone's too busy trying to hype up 2012. And if 2012 is really the exact date that you get from the Mayans then it means that they weren't entirely precise at calculating. They were about 14 years off the mark, or rather 14 winter solstices off the mark. The world didn't end 14 years ago, of course. And nothing entirely dramatic and world changing happened either. But nevertheless, I think that we'll up to our ears in MW discussion and debate all of next year regardless of the astronomical data. So for you that is probably a good thing because it's the ideal time to air out all of your research and info on MW creation mythology. The History Channel has been swamped with shows about it.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?

Ad 1: The Milky Way is approximately 100.000 light years wide and the position of the Sun is circa 27.000 light years away from the centre. If accepting the outgoing creation from the MW-Centre, this mean that the Solar System was created some 23.000 light years after the first stars in the outer edge of the galaxy were created by the Primeval Elements and by the “fiery light” of Ra, “sitting on the Primeval Mound”.

The rhythm; formative creation and rotation of the MW-centre and its connected myths of primary deities cannot directly be connected to the minor creative forces of the Sun and its biological importance for the Earth. A seasonal “Solar Myth” is even impossible because of its opposite qualities on the 2 hemispheres at the same time of the year. These problems disappear when the myths of the Primeval and primary deities are connected to the right celestial object of the MW-centre and the 2 hemisphere MW-figures.

Ad 2: Which program? History Channel.

Ad 3: “Everyone's too busy trying to hype up 2012” – Well, I´m not at all. The Milky Way alignment occurs once every year at January 4. The only difference is the movement of the precession which largely is an earthly affair. The” 5 Ages” can symbolize many other things as for instants 5 individual stages of physical and spiritual consciousness. And as for the rest of this hype, see http://www.saturn-myth-delusion.net/nibiru.htm

AD:
I haven´t consider this, but I have a Power Point representation here: http://www.native-science.net/ - below the table of contents (“View or download a brief Mytho-Cosmological Power Point review (Wait few seconds for opening - Download: Right click, "save destination as")

- A video of my ideas would have shown a explosion of light that hit a cosmic pre-galactic molecular cloud, creating thermodynamical rotation and electromagnetic circuit fields and an initial smooth movement of gasses and dust floating into the galactic centre and “down” in the funnel. This imagery can be found as “young spiral galaxies” with very tight inwards moving spirals and a very luminous centre of nuclear fusion reaction.

Next imagery is when the formative processes of stars and planets has taken place in the centre (via the Z-pinch effect) and these are moving horizontally away from the centre rotation plane. This process creates formative 2 bars out from the galactic centre, determining this change of state as “a mature galaxy” = a Barred Galaxy with a minor luminous centre (compared to the younger lumious galaxies) as in our Milky Way.

I went on my Stellarium astronomy program and observed the sunrises of both 12/21/98 and 12/21/12. In both cases the sun rises centered at the top of Sagittarius's bow, whereas the claim on many doomsday shows is that on 12/21/12 the sun will rise into the dark rift between the tip of Sagittarius's arrow and Scorpio's tale where Ophiuchus dips down, and that the Mayan's predicted it. And of course they claim that this is a big event that will have ground breaking effects on the world. Astronomer's will then respond that every winter solstice (12/21) the sun rises in Ophiuchus and it's wrong to say that it's a once in a blue moon event.

But the top of Sagittarius's bow is hardly rising in Ophiuchus into the dark rift in the first place. So it seems both sides of the argument are coming from the angle of an incorrect assertion to begin with. The other problem is that one of the guys on program was claiming that this only happens every 26,000 years because of precession, as if the current age of Pisces will be ending next year on 12/21/12 and that's the one and only time during the precession that the sun will rise in the dark rift of Ophiuchus between the tip of Sagittarius's arrow and Scorpio's tale. That's of course incorrect on a variety of different levels. There's about 140 years left for the age of Pisces and the sun isn't even rising into the dark rift on the morning of the beginning of the winter solstice in the first place. Not according to the astronomy software at least...

Now I need to check out January 4 - 6 and see what's going on at that time.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?