Moon in TdM - Cancer or Pisces ? (includes also posts on male/female aspects)

[Diana]

Am still on my obsessive quest to understand the Moon in the Tarot of Marseilles. Sorry if it's getting boring !! I've heard it said that this card is most definitely related to Cancer, and other times I've heard it's definitely related to Pisces. I had an idea the other day about the Moon, but can't follow up on it if I don't know if we're in Pisces or Cancer here and this will make all the difference.

As I don't know a single thing about astrology, I've come here for your opinions and input.

[chiscotheque]

hi Marigold - I'm no expert on the TdM, but it may be worth keeping in mind the RWS majors, which are essentially the same as the TdM, have the Moon as Pisces and the Chariot as Cancer. essentially the reason Waite renumbered Strength and Justice is so that the zodiacal signs line up with the numbering of the deck and the traditional sign sequence.

that said, some claim the Moon can be both signs or all 3 water signs, or represents the moon as an astral body, or has nothing to do with astrology.

[Charlie Brown]

Well, you should well know that there are no historical astrological attributions with the TdM. That said, Joseph Maxwell (remember we were talking about him?) makes a good case for the Moon as Cancer. TbH, Chariot as Cancer is the Golden Dawn attribution that's never made clear sense to me. Of course, if you want to play the game of astrological correspondences you have to have the whole system and not just one. Maxwell, for example, has the Sun as Gemini, which is nonsensical to the RWS card.

[Diana]

hi Marigold - I'm no expert on the TdM, but it may be worth keeping in mind the RWS majors, which are essentially the same as the TdM, have the Moon as Pisces and the Chariot as Cancer.

Well, the Moon as Pisces would fit in a bit with what I was thinking that the Moon could be announcing the age of Aquarius ("the great shift" I've heard it called, I quite like that). I would imagine that this hypothesis has already been talked about a million times, but I've never heard about it as I haven't read anything Tarot related for so long and if I had read it all those years ago, have forgotten about it.

It's just something that popped up in my mind when we were discussing in the "Moon Male or Female" thread. I can't recall my train of thought now, it went very fast with lots of associations of ideas, but I hope to retrace my steps to see what led me to this. It started out with katrinka's contribution re Earthshine (Planetshine) and then I ended up with Chronos and Gaia and now I've forgotten what happened next and inbetween. I only know I ended up with this announcement of the Age of Aquarius.

[Diana]

Of course, if you want to play the game of astrological correspondences you have to have the whole system and not just one.

I dunno. Maybe not. Why would this necessarily be so ? One only has three of the Virtues for example.

If the designer wanted to point out something or highlight something in particular, he could have just used one or two or three that were clearly recognisable to those in the know or even not so much in the know.

[Charlie Brown]

Well, I suppose if you want to say that there's only x number of signs represented there's nothing stopping you, but then why would you even say the moon IS sign x or y in the first place. That presupposes that there's some kind of inherent correspondence. If there's no systemic overlay, there's no reason to assume that there's any symbolism in any one particular card.

But what I meant though is more like, if the moon is cancer, then what do you ascribe to the chariot? If the chariot becomes Mars then what happens to the tower, etc.

If you aren't going to maintain that there's a complete system of correspondences then it doesn't make sense to start from the assumption that any sign is inherently part of the moon's symbolism. It seems like you're only thinking that because you've seen other people make the claim based on their systems in the first place. As for the virtues, it's different because those cards aren't incorporating symbolic allusions to the virtues, they're direct representations of the virtues. Also, I'm not sure the World isn't Prudence.

[chiscotheque]

Maxwell, for example, has the Sun as Gemini, which is nonsensical to the RWS card.

curiously, sense can be made of this assertion. in fact, i can think of 2 ways off the top of my head - first, the RWS Sun card depicts baby Jesus. astrologers have deduced that Christ was born sometime between May 29 and June 7, making him a Gemini. Second, many traditions, teachings, and apocryphal gospels claim that Jesus was a twin - some say with James the Just, some with Thomas, whose name literally means "twin".

Charlie Brown, maybe you can elaborate on the key reasons Maxwell assigns the Moon to Cancer?

as for astrological epochs, they last roughly 2000 years and move backwards through the zodiac. from the birth of Christ until now was the Piscean age, hence the era of Christianity and its church and the symbol of the fish. we move now into Aquarius, the Star.

can a card have more than one star sign assigned it? can 2 cards have the same star sign assignment?

[Diana]

Very well argued Charlie Brown. Thank you.

It's this darn Tarot of Marseilles that's bugging me. What's it's all about ? Is there a story behind the cards or isn't there ? Does each card tell a different story or are they linked ? The numbering seems to indicate a progression. But were these just put there for the needs of the game and sometimes we find a happy correspondence like with the Emperor ?

And I think any story can be put on any random set of images, so naturally WE can see any story we like, but was there a story to start out with ? And does it matter ? And why the hell does it matter to me so much ? (But this is a question I need to ask myself and why not with a bit of input with a Tarot reading one day.)

You're so right when you say that I'm repeating what I've heard others say. Like I said I know nothing about astrology so I wouldn't have picked up on this idea of mine about the announcement of the age of Aquarius without hearing something about Pisces or Cancer from somewhere. I've always had to trust blindly the few sources I thought seemed to be of some worth. But still, there's something compelling about the Star pouring her water from the jugs (yes, I know, this is also an attribute sometimes given to Temperance - nobody knows for sure.)

It's all very confusing.

[Charlie Brown]

Maxwell, for example, has the Sun as Gemini, which is nonsensical to the RWS card.

curiously, sense can be made of this assertion. in fact, i can think of 2 ways off the top of my head - first, the RWS Sun card depicts baby Jesus. astrologers have deduced that Christ was born sometime between May 29 and June 7, making him a Gemini. Second, many traditions, teachings, and apocryphal gospels claim that Jesus was a twin - some say with James the Just, some with Thomas, whose name literally means "twin".

Charlie Brown, maybe you can elaborate on the key reasons Maxwell assigns the Moon to Cancer?

as for astrological epochs, they last roughly 2000 years and move backwards through the zodiac. from the birth of Christ until now was the Piscean age, hence the era of Christianity and its church and the symbol of the fish. we move now into Aquarius, the Star.

can a card have more than one star sign assigned it? can 2 cards have the same star sign assignment?

I've never heard that the child in the sun card is supposed to be Jesus. Where did you come across that? The child with the flag, or one very similar, does appear in the Vieville tarot, which seems to be where Waite got his design from

Off the top of my head, Maxwell assigns the moon to cancer because of 1) the crustacean and 2) the fact that the moon rules cancer.

[Diana]

can a card have more than one star sign assigned it? can 2 cards have the same star sign assignment?

Seems a bit unwieldy. It's a thought to ponder on though. If it makes some kind of sense it's maybe worth keeping this in some corner of one's mind. Or explore it further. Explorers often follow unusual pathways. Most times they end up as food for a crocodile (in the Tarot you're the lioness's dinner, or shipwrecked on the high seas (like the Chariot when it crashes headlong into a wall), but sometimes they reach a nice little island with pineapple trees.

[Diana]

Charlie Brown, maybe you can elaborate on the key reasons Maxwell assigns the Moon to Cancer?

I'm not Charlie Brown (but you knew that already.)

Here's a very rough translation of the paragraph in his book "Le Tarot, le Symbole, les Arcanes, la Divination". (I have a 1933 edition. I love it but don't think I've ever read it through completely.)

Its astrophysical attribution is certain. It is the tropical sign of Cancer. The crayfish is its symbol, and the presence of the Moon, which is obscure, and therefore secondary, perhaps even eclipsed, gives first place to the symbol of the sign, which is also the astrological domicile of the Moon.

(I didn’t know how to translate “domicile astrologique” so I translated it literally.)

[chiscotheque]

Charile brown: while Waite kept his cards close to his chest so to speak, it is widely known and accepted that he altered the traditional TdM Sun card to represent his Christian beliefs. if you want more specific references, i guess i could dig them up. Christ is the Son, after all, and the Light. for the record, Waite represents the newborn Christ of the Second Coming where he rides a white horse (Revelations 19:11-16).

interestingly, Matthew has Christ enter Jerusalem both on an ass AND on a white horse. this is because the evangelist wanted to link the event to a prediction in Zechariah, but he misinterpreted it. in the old testament text, it says the messiah will enter Jerusalem on an ass, a white colt. it's a literary technique of underscoring, which is to say the ass was white. instead, Matthew inadvertently makes an ass of himself and gives Jesus 2 asses.

as for Maxwell's assertions - i'd hardly say it was an open and shut case. it is said a crab carries its house around with it, an obvious parallel with the Chariot. the chariot is the beginning of the soul journey (Plato likened the soul to a chariot), corresponding to its numerical placement in the Arcanum. Cancer is connected with motherhood, and the chariot is like a pregnant woman. Hades stole Persephone in his chariot; as part of the deal to save her, Demeter must send a chariot every year to reseed the earth (motherhood again). the 2 horses go sideways like a crab. the epaulets are moon faces, and as with the horses are light & dark - like the moon. etc. etc.

[Diana]

interestingly, Matthew has Christ enter Jerusalem both on an ass AND on a white horse. this is because the evangelist wanted to link the event to a prediction in Zechariah, but he misinterpreted it. in the old testament text, it says the messiah will enter Jerusalem on an ass, a white colt. it's a literary technique of underscoring, which is to say the ass was white. instead, Matthew inadvertently makes an ass of himself and gives Jesus 2 asses.

Oh that is very funny !! Poor old Matthew. Here we're laughing at him, and he most likely didn't even write the gospel that has his name. So let's not laugh too much at the poor guy, we may be laughing at the wrong person.

Any more snippets like that would be most welcome.

[chiscotheque]

The Gospels are certainly not written by the people whose names they bear; a number of the letters at the New Testament's end are spurious too.

another misguided example of inventing aspects of Christ's story to corroborate Jewish prophecy is Isaiah 7:14. Matthew (again) knew the Hebrew bible in its Greek translation which has: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." the Hebrew reads "young woman" (almah), but the Greek parthenos was chosen, which can mean young innocent girl or a virgin specifically. This virgin birth stuff was great for the mythological aspect of Jesus, but also helped obscure the rumor that he was illegitimate.

a little while back I mentioned that the Holy Spirit is considered female.this is a tradition amongst a contingent of Christians, but not universally accepted (not that anything is universally accepted). it makes some sense that it would be feminine, since Jesus and the Father are both male, but then Judaism (and Christianity and Islam) are distinct from other religions in that they have no female aspect to their Godhead. This talk that God is both male & female is hogwash - a feminine word or form is never used when speaking of God. That the soul is feminine is a common view, being a vessel or receptacle for the spirit. Indeed, some church fathers argued the Holy Spirit couldn't be female because the soul is female, making for a baren union (as if an all-male spiritual world and clergy isn't barren).

For the record, I don't believe the cards have a hard and fast star sign attached to each one, or that that they can't have more than one. everyone has a sun AND a moon sign, after all, not to mention ascendant and all the houses. at best, the zodiacal allocations provide a vague context and mood; I don't personally even consider the allocations much consciously at any rate when reading.

.

[Diana]

another misguided example of inventing aspects of Christ's story to corroborate Jewish prophecy is Isaiah 7:14. Matthew (again) knew the Hebrew bible in its Greek translation which has: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." the Hebrew reads "young woman" (almah), but the Greek parthenos was chosen, which can mean young innocent girl or a virgin specifically. This virgin birth stuff was great for the mythological aspect of Jesus, but also helped obscure the rumor that he was illegitimate.

I would contend that it was more than great for the mythological aspect of Jesus. I would say it was indispensable. It's old old mythology the origins of which are lost in the mists of time, although what we do have as proof is very ancient, as I'm sure you know. The Jesus story just came as a continuation of the mythology that has been passed down the ages since we don't know when.

I will no doubt be responding to the rest of your post, but I need to read it properly later this evening when my head is in the right place to do so. It sounds very promising.

Edited to add: All this controversy about virgin birth or illegitimate birth would not be necessary if people didn't take the Bible LITERALLY.

[Diana]

Haven't yet had time to read properly the other part of your post, chiscotheque. I was reading up on other non related subjects and I came across this, but I wasn't researching it. It's just one of those odd coincidences. It's about the white horse/colt. I didn't know that white horses were so widespread in mythology.

Islamic culture tells of a white horse named Al-Buraq who brought Muhammad to Jannah,
In Revelation Christ is to return riding a white horse.
Guatama Buddha rode his white horse named Kanthaka
The Celts believed that the white horse was a representation of God.
Zoroastrians portrayed the Star Sirius as a white horse.
In Hindu, Kalki the incarnation of Vishnu is predicted to appear riding a white horse.
In Korean Mythology the people prayed and from a bolt of lightning appeared a white horse.
In Uffington England a white horse carved into a hill is over 3,000 years old.

[Diana]

a little while back I mentioned that the Holy Spirit is considered female.this is a tradition amongst a contingent of Christians, but not universally accepted (not that anything is universally accepted). it makes some sense that it would be feminine, since Jesus and the Father are both male, but then Judaism (and Christianity and Islam) are distinct from other religions in that they have no female aspect to their Godhead. This talk that God is both male & female is hogwash - a feminine word or form is never used when speaking of God. That the soul is feminine is a common view, being a vessel or receptacle for the spirit. Indeed, some church fathers argued the Holy Spirit couldn't be female because the soul is female, making for a baren union (as if an all-male spiritual world and clergy isn't barren).

One could question whether Jesus was referring to anything with a gender when he spoke of the Father. He was using the language of the time and used words that people would understand according to the cultural and social norms of the time. I could imagine if he were here today, he would use "the Presence" or "the Source" or "Love" or just plain "God" - something more modern. His language also can be very cryptic at times. Almost all of the time. He told great parables for example. Some hugely difficult to interpret.

[chiscotheque]

All this controversy about virgin birth or illegitimate birth would not be necessary if people didn't take the Bible LITERALLY.

arguably, being less literal about everything would cause a lot less grief. but there's something about people - they like to make cold hard distinctions; it gives them pleasure in the short term, cutting them off from how things really are and causing discord in the long run.

to my mind, the core of the virgin birth myth is a hang up about sexuality. It's connected to Eve and the Eden transgression. Simply, sex is bad, as are women - who evoke sexual feelings in men - so how can the Son of Man evade that stain? the tried & true Virgin Birth. a similar revisionism lards the testaments with Old testament parallels and erases Mary Magdelene as an apostle and/or consort of Jesus. The Gospel of John turns Thomas into a doubter and undermines his credibility because Thomasine Christians were a rival sect to the Johannine Christians.

in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus speaks of coming from God the Father AND God the Mother. in the Gospel of Judas, Jesus comes from the realm of Barbelo - a divine female principle and the first emanation of God. In the end, probably the most reliable parts of the New Testament are the sayings and parables of Christ, and specifically the ones most difficult to parse or otherwise seemingly contradictory, since those would've been excised if they hadn't a strong connection to what Christ actually said.

back to the Moon card here for a minute: has anyone seen in it a faint allusion to the womb?

not to be too graphic, but the spermatoza swims upwards, not unlike the crayfish (we were all fish at one time of some sort or other after all). the crayfish can also be like the feotus. the dogs like the ovaries visually, and the harshness of postnatal reality figuratively. the moon like the pregnant mother. this mother aspect, and by implication the father aspect of the Sun, underscores the inner/outer, subjective/objective aspects of the Moon & Sun, suggesting the traditional binary roles of unconditional love (and perhaps indulgence) from the mother and meritorious love (and perhaps punitive withholding of love) from the father. I might note that a syncretic third is created in the card which follows these, Judgment, where a child-like figure emerges from between the man and woman.


.

[Diana]

to my mind, the core of the virgin birth myth is a hang up about sexuality. It's connected to Eve and the Eden transgression. Simply, sex is bad, as are women - who evoke sexual feelings in men - so how can the Son of Man evade that stain? the tried & true Virgin Birth. a similar revisionism lards the testaments with Old testament parallels and erases Mary Magdelene as an apostle and/or consort of Jesus. The Gospel of John turns Thomas into a doubter and undermines his credibility because Thomasine Christians were a rival sect to the Johannine Christians.

Well, it certainly has caused havoc on that scene. A hang up about sexuality as you say. Once again, the word “Virgin” has been taken literally. I mean these guys who wrote these texts were Eastern mystics. They didn’t talk about human affairs – their writings and teachings had another purpose. Even the 10 commandments which sound so moralistic and boring – they have a deep spiritual meaning. Like the one about adultery – it’s all about one’s relationship with God/Spirit - not about an “illicit” sexual act between two mortals. But then again, I imagine at the time, people probably didn’t have much of a moral code, so maybe it served also a purpose to teach them some common sense. But that’s just a nice added thing. Sort of kills two birds with one stone. (Also not to be taken literally – but if I were a guru, in a thousand years, people would be killing birds with two stones in my name and praying for things to be added to them.) Anyway, we based our legal laws upon some of them in the west and some of them make good sense even literally. But still that was not the REAL purpose. Mystics speak in different ways than normal people like us.

in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus speaks of coming from God the Father AND God the Mother. in the Gospel of Judas, Jesus comes from the realm of Barbelo - a divine female principle and the first emanation of God. In the end, probably the most reliable parts of the New Testament are the sayings and parables of Christ, and specifically the ones most difficult to parse or otherwise seemingly contradictory, since those would've been excised if they hadn't a strong connection to what Christ actually said.

Oooh, another snippit. Have to go and find about this Barbelo. Just rapidly I saw that it’s of Greek etymology and is often depicted as a supreme female principle, the single passive antecedent of creation in its manifoldness.

Talking about unusual births, I read earlier that Horus' conception and birth were understood in terms of the Egyptian doctrine of parthenogenesis, which was connected with the goddess Neith of Sais. And Neith was an early ancient Egyptian deity who was said to be the first and the prime creator. She was said to be the creator of the universe and all it contains, and she governs how it functions.

And your anatomy lesson was great and that's another little jewel added to the treasure chest of the Cult of Tarot. Thanks for all that. Most appreciated.

Edited to add: Actually there are more than 10 commandments. I think I counted 13. Why are the other 3 never mentioned, I wondered.

[Diana]

Now, we actually have it written in black and white right in Genesis 1:27 whether God is male or female or both or neither. Can't be said in plainer language.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The image and likeness, being an image and likeness, "reflects" back what the original image is. And it's written very plainly that this image and likeness is both male and female and therefore God, the "original" is by implication also both male and female (my hyphens round "reflect" and "original" are to indicate that these are just broad terms. Not to be nitpicked about). And it's important I think also to note that the word Man is singular. So Man is both male and female. So it follows that Man (with a capital M to distinguish between Man and the adamic man) is also androgyn. I don't think one can argue about that. Or did I miss something ?

It is supposed that the figure in the World card of the Tarot of Marseilles is androgyn and represents the Christ.

Also want to add (this post has been edited quite a lot but this is the last time) that here I'm quoting Biblical scripture. But I'd eat my hat or even two hats if one wouldn't find this same description of God in all the great Scriptures and teachings of the world. Bibilical is the one I know best, so that's why I use these examples. If I were versed in the Upanishads for example, I'd probably use examples from there as well. Or from Lao Tseu. Or whatever.

(I changed the title of this thread, as we've got two threads overlapping so for people who may look for things like this in the future, these last ones would be difficult to find.)

[chiscotheque]

Now, we actually have it written in black and white right in Genesis 1:27 whether God is male or female or both or neither. Can't be said in plainer language.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

i would point out that God is referred to as He and His, but this could be a linguistic device, like the masculine form of they (ils) in french when a group, comprised of no matter how many females, contains a male. by the same token, God is never referred to as a she in the bible or christian church and no clergy that I've ever encountered would dream of it, any more than there's a single classical painting of God as anything but male. a convention you might say, a patriarchal realpolitik I say. I might also point out there are 2 creation of Man stories in the bible, and the other one has Adam created first with Eve an after-thought knock-off. Judaism was very much a reaction against the numerous Goddess cults which existed around its development, which is why it is so distinctively male and why Eve gets such bad press.

Cancer's crab is sometimes referred to as a crayfish. or a lobster, but it has also been likened to a scorpion. this grey area between the water signs caused me to wonder if the moon doesn't reflect all the water signs, or even all the female, so-called "negative" signs?

[Diana]

i would point out that God is referred to as He and His, but this could be a linguistic device, like the masculine form of they (ils) in french when a group, comprised of no matter how many females, contains a male. by the same token, God is never referred to as a she in the bible or christian church and no clergy that I've ever encountered would dream of it, any more than there's a single classical painting of God as anything but male. a convention you might say, a patriarchal realpolitik I say. I might also point out there are 2 creation of Man stories in the bible, and the other one has Adam created first with Eve an after-thought knock-off. Judaism was very much a reaction against the numerous Goddess cults which existed around its development, which is why it is so distinctively male and why Eve gets such bad press.

Cancer's crab is sometimes referred to as a crayfish. or a lobster, but it has also been likened to a scorpion. this grey area between the water signs caused me to wonder if the moon doesn't reflect all the water signs, or even all the female, so-called "negative" signs?

I would assume that this is a linguistic device. Perhaps it sounds a bit disrespectful to refer to God as "It". I do often but it sounds weird. On the wiki page of the gender of God in Judaism it says : Although the Gender of God in Judaism is referred to in the Tanakh with masculine imagery and grammatical forms, traditional Jewish philosophy does not attribute the concept of sex to God. At times, Jewish aggadic literature and Jewish mysticism do treat God as gendered. The ways in which God is gendered have also changed across time, with some modern Jewish thinkers viewing God as outside of the gender binary. I would imagine that Jewish scholars have discussed this topic for hours and hours and years and generations (they do love to talk don't they !!!) and they would know all about the Hebrew language and its incredible intricacies.

As to the two versions of the creation of man, yes indeed. There are two versions. That's why I mentioned Man and the Adamic man in my previous post. The second story of creation happened after a "mist rose from the ground". And God's work had already been finished and complete (he had rested already) - there was no more work to do. So why should he/It make a knock-up version? Strangely enough and as far as I know, Adam and Eve are only mentioned in Genesis and are never mentioned ever again in scriptures.

Bill Donahue (not the nasty Catholic League one who is Donohue, not Donahue. I'm talking about the Bill who bashes the fundamentalists) makes quite a good argument for God being dark matter which would be Melchizedek, the King of Peace "without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life". Donahue has some very interesting things to say about the scriptures. I don't always agree with his conclusions but he certainly makes people think out of the box and see things in a different light. His Melchizedek theory and dark matter is very intriguing and is backed up by something I don't think he mentioned : And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was. (Exodus 20:21).

[chiscotheque]

I don't know anything about Donohue - is that from the Gospel of Marlo Thomas?

For the record, Paul mentions Adam numerous times, but he doesn't exactly add to the postlapsarian narrative. on a sidebar, many early Christians considered Seth to be the important child of Eve; they were often called Sethians.

The funny thing about the Genesis pronouns for God is the writers have Him referring to Himself as Us and Our. On the one hand, this could corroborate the idea God is both male & female, but on the other, why didn't they use that device throughout, so that after "And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness" it would read "So God created man in Their own image, in the image of God created They him; male and female created They them".

For the record, it's all well and good for modern theologians to revisit definitions, but that doesn't change how God was designed and peddled in the past - it only obfuscates it. In Jewish tradition, the Holy Spirit is decidedly female, suggesting the nature of its role. There obviously is a strain of monotheists who believed God was beyond sexual categories, and that, of course, is within the progressive syncretist vein of theological development, but there is also the basic way theological ideas are taught to the masses, and that sees God decidedly male. This disparity is seen in the 2 Genesis stories of Man's creation. I believe the story of Eve created as a servant to Adam out of his rib is a direct response to Goddess cults of the time and the physical reality that men are born from women. in a way, the rib story is a version of the virgin birth - it attempts to subvert and rewrite physical reality, because that reality could be said to place women in a unique position which (some) men resent.


.

[Diana]

Marlo Thomas ? What's that ??

Bill Donohue is not to be touched with a barge pole. He's a nasty piece of work. Bill DONAHUE - well everyone has to watch some of his videos at one time in their life. Sort of a rite of passage I think!! He turns the bible upside down. And he can be so funny sometimes too. Here's his talk on youtube about Melchizedek and Dark Matter. The fundamentalists and evangelists and catholics et al think Donahue is some kind of devil !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEtBulDqIg8&t=1449s

He doesn't post new stuff - I'm not even sure he's still alive. His later talks are a bit far out, I find them less interesting. But some of his earlier videos are really good to watch with a discerning mind.

About the two stories of creation. I don't really feel like pursuing that further on this thread. We'd be getting into deep spiritual debates which will probably not go anywhere. But I will just say that it starts out, as far as I (and no doubt others) have figured out, with the mist. It's odd that the mist rises isn't it? One doesn't see well in a mist...

[archimedes]

Are the sun and moon necessarily ascribed an astrological correspondence? Given they move through the heavens; they are astral bodies. Where they sit in relation to the zodiac is what it's all about, so why would a card for the Moon be ascribed a single place in the heavens?

I think the child in the sun card is Paethon, who stole the horses of Helios and drove the sun chariot, but couldn't control them and was cast out and died. See the Mantegna tarot, too. I suspect the twins on the TdM sun could be a reference to the daughters of Helios.