hmm, there are many traditions on this. I remember reading a hebrew text which states that the heavens was stationary in the time of eden. After the "fall" G-d commanded the angels to push forth the sun and the moon and the "wandering stars" and from these ......came the seasons and changes and the signs......and something more on the "fixed" stars. Have to look it up.

Yes, it is true that there are variations in regard to the creation myths. But these are different from the actual thema mundi, which was not developed until the advent of the horoscope. In the Old Testament, for example, there are two creation myths that contradict each other. There has been long term debate over this issue and many scholars point to this as being convincing evidence that the bible is not to be taken literally.

Some of these debates originate from the first century CE. Origen asks what man of common sense could ever persuade himself that there had been a first, a second, a third day, and that each of those days had their evening and their morning without there having been yet either Sun or Moon or Stars? Philo pointed out that the stars were not created until the fourth day in order that it might be perfectly clear that they were not the primary source of things. But this left the question of when it was that time began.

The Venerable Bede (672-735), who had been particularly concerned with the astrological configurations of Creation in Genesis, explains that the difference of opinions concerning the actual date of Creation ? whether it occurred on 19th March or 23rd March, according to him ? reflects the problem of how one might determine the first day of Creation if, strictly speaking, there was no time prior to the Creation of the Sun, the Moon and the Stars. Even though God created light and shade during the second day of Creation, it was not until he created the stars that he could place the Sun in its equinoctial position. Bede believed that the universe began with time ? on the fourth day of Creation when God placed the Sun on the vernal equinox in the zodiacal sign of Aries.

Even though the two stories of creation in Genesis and Ennuma Elish have long been compared and contrasted, Ennuma Elish is not about creation in the traditional Christian sense. It is a story of how a pre-existing universe was organised into its present shape. The order of creation in Enuma Elish is not quite the same as it is in Genesis, with the heavenly bodies in the Babylonian epic being created immediately after the formation of the firmament while in the Hebrew version this is postponed until after the earth and vegetation have been made. One of Marduk?s first acts in creating the universe was to organise the heavenly bodies, and particularly the schedule of the Moon ? creating the Mesopotamian calendar based on the lunar month. In other words, Marduk creates time from the very beginning. In the Biblical creation myth, according to some, time is not dependent on the creation of the heavenly bodies of the Sun and the Moon. In other words, time already existed before the creation of these heavenly bodies. This has interesting implications for a thema mundi in the Christian sense. If the stars and planets did not exist when time began then how can we have an astrological representation of the thema mundi using tools that did not yet exist?

why would I use the bible to decide on time?

or any other philosophical work?

If I am looking at a world birth chart I would need to decide what it is I was really asking.

The world does not need humans to exist, we are a blip in its life time.

I would still consider that what is being asked, unless otherwise specified was about human environment and era, not the earth itself. the only context in which I could see the actual earth birthdata being significant is if oen was looking for some armageddon type alignment. Okay just a thought or two...

for instance when people talk about destroying the earths environment, they really mean the human environment, the earth would continue, even if we stripped it of all its atmosphere with our stupidity. it is self preservation that is being discussed in such instances.

Granny

What was being asked related specifically to the thema mundi chart. Any discussion on creation and the thema mundi charts involve a philosophical (and often theological) construct that has nothing to do with actual events whether they relate to humankind or not. Strictly speaking, thema mundi is Latin for theme of the universe/world. It is representative of the coming of the world into existence.

You do not have to use the Bible for timing any more than you would use Ennuma Elish for timing except as a philosophical construct. If you look at any creation myth you will find that the world (and, therefore, the thema mundi chart) was created prior to the creation of human beings. As was pointed out earlier, Firmicus Maternus clearly stated in Matheisis that the thema mundi chart was not to be taken as a literal chart but rather as a teaching tool, particularly as it related to the exaltation of the planets. It was never meant as a chart to use in mundane events in the way that a chart might be used for the birth of a nation.

Ahhh, thank you for the explanation. It seems to me that it would be a very imprecise tool.

Granny

Was discussed at the Conclave satisfactorily -- considered a teaching tool, Schmidt showed how to use it.

BUT -- I find the Kali Yuga Inception chart 18 February 3102 BC -- all the planets within 41 degrees -- rumored to be observed in situ, impossible since everything but Saturn and Mercury under the beams. The planets are all grouped about Revati which is 29PIXX -- cast it for midnight for a place on the Indus.