Atlantis and the Bible (2 parts)

Just for you guys who haven't read them
Critias
Timaeus

No more ridiculous claims or excuses. these are the only two credible sources on Atlantis
Read them, there might be questions later

originally posted by: frenchfries

a reply to: TheBwaap

... and also Atlantis is just a name it might be called different. The bottomline is it that there was a very advanced human civilization about 12000 years ago. I think they could terraform earth any way they like. Puma punku and many other places were part of that civilization. It''s also my believe that churches (moslim and christian) deliberately destroyed evidence of such civilization. Even today many archeological sites are being destroyed (not only by isis ) and artefacts often dissapear. Atlantis (or whatever you may call it) is a fact. But if one degrades Atlantis to a single island one misses the point....

I think you're correct, that Atlantis was a world-spanning empire (a colonial empire, much like the British empire) and wasn't just one specific location.

As far as Atlantean artifacts being deliberately destroyed, though, I don't think that's the case -- other than by ISIS and other very extreme, militant groups like that. Instead, I think that in general, people just didn't understand what evidence they may have found.

In the past two hundred years, the science of archaeology has advanced a LOT. Before then, evidence from the ground wasn't recovered in any sort of systematic way, and whatever information we DO have about things that were recovered (e.g., giant skeletons, to use just one example) is anecdotal at best.

Even organized religions aren't consistent within themselves. They can, and do, lose knowledge that they once had.

In the 2nd century BCE, Jews at Alexandria, Egypt, made a Greek translation of the biblical text, called the Septuagint. One of the things they did was to alter the genealogies in Genesis and add 100 years to the age of each patriarch at the time he begot his son (the next in the line of the genealogy). They did this because, in being exposed to the history of ancient Egypt, they knew it went back further than roughly 2450 BCE, which is when the biblical Flood was supposed to have occurred. In order to reconcile the biblical text with the historical reality they were faced with, they altered the ages of the patriarchs.

They had lost the proper knowledge and understanding of the cultural context of the Flood, over two thousand years before.

I know it's tempting to believe in conspiracies re the Vatican or whatever, secreting away hidden knowledge that "contradicts" a correct understanding of ancient times. But it's much more likely that ancient knowledge was simply lost, or misunderstood by those who came later.

Damon

a reply to: Marduk

Hi Mr marduk ,

'And how do you destroy evidence of a civilisation, which didn't exist in the first place'

Why so verbally agressive ? Look you and I don't know if this civilisation actually existed. It's ATS it's CT's it's discussing so keep an open mind...

But , I know for a fact that several artifacts involving 'Atlantis' have been destroyed or mislabeled. And I know for fact that the subject of 'Atlantis' is tabu for Academia.

a reply to: damonjc

I know it's tempting to believe in conspiracies re the Vatican or whatever, secreting away hidden knowledge that "contradicts" a correct understanding of ancient times. But it's much more likely that ancient knowledge was simply lost, or misunderstood by those who came later.

I think it's both lost knowledge and a conspiracy (thats why I'm on ATS) ... Think about what the vatican did to Gorgiano Bruno. What if altlanteans knew the earth was round and stars were suns. hmmm they must have known if their civilization was worldwide high tech. So I tend to believe that beside Giordano Bruno also knowledge was destroyed by the Vatican.

a reply to: Marduk

Just one question who decides what a credible source is ?

I mean hyperborea isn't credible ? Ultima Thule ? why not. I've been spoon fed with greek and roman history... What about the book of veles ? Hi brazil ? land of Mu ?

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: Marduk

Hi Mr marduk ,

'And how do you destroy evidence of a civilisation, which didn't exist in the first place'

Why so verbally agressive ? Look you and I don't know if this civilisation actually existed. It's ATS it's CT's it's discussing so keep an open mind...

But , I know for a fact that several artifacts involving 'Atlantis' have been destroyed or mislabeled. And I know for fact that the subject of 'Atlantis' is tabu for Academia.

Wrong on all counts, but I'd love to see what you think are artifacts from Atlantis

A credible source, theres a page which defines it here
libanswers.uwinnipeg.ca...
Notice, that Pseudo historians are not regarded as credible sources, because they contain a large amount of fabricated evidence which is easily dismissed...

originally posted by: damonjc
I think you're correct, that Atlantis was a world-spanning empire (a colonial empire, much like the British empire) and wasn't just one specific location.

And your source on that claim is what ?
Because if you don't have one....

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: damonjc

I think it's both lost knowledge and a conspiracy (thats why I'm on ATS) ... Think about what the vatican did to Gorgiano Bruno. What if altlanteans knew the earth was round and stars were suns. hmmm they must have known if their civilization was worldwide high tech. So I tend to believe that beside Giordano Bruno also knowledge was destroyed by the Vatican.

True, and yes, I'm aware of what the Vatican did to Giordano Bruno. Imho, though, it wasn't because the Vatican somehow "knew" that Bruno was right, but because they were convinced that *they* were right.

It does seem like the ancient knowledge of astronomy was advanced enough to be able to see things in the cosmos that cannot be observed with the naked eye. See this article for more info.

Interestingly, ancient lenses have been discovered, going all the way back to the fourth dynasty of Egypt. So it's highly likely that they WERE observing the heavens in great detail, and that knowledge was lost later on.

Damon

a reply to: Marduk

because they contain a large amount of fabricated evidence which is easily dismissed...

You make it sound like history is an exact science which it isn't !

a reply to: damonjc

Robert Temple is a known fraudster and crystal links is laughably incorrect
If these are your other sources then its clear where you've gone wrong.

originally posted by: frenchfries

You make it sound like history is an exact science which it isn't !

Logic is an exact science
Here's what logic should tell you
There is only one source for Atlantis, Plato
whether he invented it, or whether its a real place is irrelevant for discussion purposes
What's important is that you use the ONLY source
to do that you have to be aware of what that source says
and apparently, no one in this thread has a clue what he said, especially the OP, who even if he does know what Plato said, has decided to ignore it in favour of some poor research, based on the fabrication of pseudo historians, which he admitted in the OP

Have you read Critias and Timaeus yet, I posted them earlier

a reply to: Marduk

There is only one source for Atlantis, Plato

You're wrong !!!

it should have been

There is only one currently KNOWN source for Atlantis, Plato

In your vision one should always use Plato. History could be based on incomplete facts thats why history in contrary to physics is not an exact science ! You make it sound like history is finished everything is known and there is no room for error. I guess that's why your mood is omnipotent (comes with the stars I guess). Atlantis could exist history could be different , Hyperborea is mentioned in many russian texts that you don't know about. This ATS and not an academic discourse.

Also logic is no science logic is the reasoning within science.

Plato is the only source because he made the place up

a reply to: Marduk

So Plato made Atlantis up ... so he can not be regarded as credible source so he is a pseudo historian I dont think so

Look guy , I like to discuss with you but you're so fricking arrogant man. You don't know everything ever spoke with an Mbote ? Or A manshu ? Look I also do not know everything but I know that there are many references to hyperborea atlantis and such by very primitive people that can't even write. Also there are megaliths that defy any explanation. Wolfram pillars in siberia and forest equatoriale and many other stuff that is unexplained. But I get the picture. You know History I get that and you feel omnipotent on ATS , teaching people history ?. Look , ATS is about CT's for you it's about insulting and patronizing people that are not mainstream (masturbatory fantasy? ) 'Atlantis' is a theory nothing more. A possibility that history could be incomplete or wrong. I love people that dare to think outside the box instead of repeating it's contents.

oh yeah and Science of Logic is the title of a book please read your own links

originally posted by: frenchfries

Plato is the only source because he made the place up

a reply to: Marduk

So Plato made Atlantis up ... so he can not be regarded as credible source so he is a pseudo historian

I dont think so

Look guy , I like to discuss with you but you're so fricking arrogant man. You don't know everything ever spoke with an Mbote ? Or A manshu ? Look I also do not know everything but I know that there are many references to hyperborea atlantis and such by very primitive people that can't even write. Also there are megaliths that defy any explanation. Wolfram pillars in siberia and forest equatoriale and many other stuff that is unexplained. But I get the picture. You know History I get that and you feel omnipotent on ATS , teaching people history ?. Look , ATS is about CT's for you it's about insulting and patronizing people that are not mainstream (masturbatory fantasy? ) 'Atlantis' is a theory nothing more. A possibility that history could be incomplete or wrong. I love people that dare to think outside the box instead of repeating it's contents.

oh yeah and Science of Logic is the title of a book please read your own links

let me put some water in the wine,.
okay the exact phrasing Atlantis comes from Plato.
indeed many myths etc talk about some distant advanced civ,.

let's call it, humm, Atlantis for ease of reference.....

tadaa a non problem solved....

let's get on with this great thread

originally posted by: damonjcit's pretty clear that a major disaster occurred around 11,600 years ago, precipitating massive extinctions and numerous human migrations.

Actually, it isn't.

There are multiple Holocene extinctions en.wikipedia.org...

The one at the end of the last Ice Age wasn't a case of "Everybody fall down dead all at once!" They appear to be connected with the arrival of humans and it's considered an ongoing event: en.wikipedia.org...

From Plato, we learn at least a little bit about what Atlantis was like (and let's assume, for sake of argument, that he was describing a real place rather than a utopian ideal for his dialogue), and from the various megalithic constructions that suddenly appeared we can make a decent attempt at tracing the cultural legacy of Atlantis.]

I think you might want to first check some of the dates for those monuments.

From megalithic sites like Gobekli Tepe, Tiahuanaco, or Mount Shoria in southern Siberia, we see a focus on highly advanced engineering, coupled with advanced astronomical knowledge.

Gobekl Tepe- 10,000 BC in Turkey
Tiahunaco - 1500 BC in MesoAmerica
Mount Shoria- geology, not human activity

* The concept of reflecting the perfection of heaven on earth
* The identification of specific constellations with geographical locations on earth (e.g., Orion as Egypt, the Pleiades as Sumer/Babylon)
* The dualistic concept of matter vs. spirit
* The concept of heaven representing the afterlife (e.g. the Milky Way = the duat through which the soul travels after death)
* Mind-altering drugs (e.g. Peyote, coc aine) as a means for accessing spirit
* Ritual temple prostitution
* The practice of burying wife and servants alive, together with a deceased leader (pharaoh, etc.)
* Infant, child or human sacrifice

None of the civilizations that had writing expressed the idea of the Earth being the perfection of heaven. I hope you'll take some time to read translations of works from these cultures (modern translations - not Budge!) Servant sacrifice was practiced in Egypt for only about 200 years, and there's no evidence of anyone burying anyone alive as a practice in any culture. It makes for great drama in the opera, Aida,but doesn't seem to be a real practice.

And child sacrifice was NEVER practiced by the Egyptians. It was abhorrent to them.
Likewise,there's not much evidence of sacred prostitution as being a "real thing" - and it certainly wasn't a practice in Egypt!en.wikipedia.org...

Not much use of mind-altering drugs, either. Wine, yes. Other things... not really.

And the countries themselves did not define themselves with constellations (also, the ones that Hancock refers to are Greek constellations (not those of the other civilizations.) The way that Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians grouped the stars into constellations was very different than that.

The big weakness is that you, like many others, skip over the key elements of Plato's story:
*Atlantis conquered all the known world EXCEPT for Athens.
*It sank and became a huge stretch of impassible mud flats.
* Athens defeated it with technology that was Early Bronze Age.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: damonjcit's pretty clear that a major disaster occurred around 11,600 years ago, precipitating massive extinctions and numerous human migrations.

Actually, it isn't.

There are multiple Holocene extinctions en.wikipedia.org...

The one at the end of the last Ice Age wasn't a case of "Everybody fall down dead all at once!" They appear to be connected with the arrival of humans and it's considered an ongoing event: en.wikipedia.org...

You know, thank you for being civil. I really appreciate it. There's a big difference between merely disagreeing (which you did) and being condescending (which someone else did).

As far as the "ongoing event" goes, yes, I've read books from "After the Ice" by Steven Mithen, which is firmly in the camp of science, all the way to "The Cycle of Cosmic Catatrophes" by Richard Firestone and Allen West which discusses things from a more alternative point of view. Each side has their pluses. (And no, I'm by no means trying to make each side equal.)

Climate change certainly accounts for a *lot* of what happened in that transitional time. But "a lot" isn't all, imho.

I forget which book I read it in, but I remember reading about the massive flooding of the Great Northwest which happened sometime around the close of the Ice Age. The author described the geological evidence and then calmly presented, do you believe the conventional story, which says that all of this environmental impact was a result of the bursting of a glacial great lake, or would it take MUCH more water than that ever could have provided? In which case, where did all of the additional water come from?

Their proposal, of course, was a comet impact on the North American ice sheet which would have instantly thawed enormous quantities of water. And it's precisely because conventional science turns up its nose at any notion of catastrophism that I don't take the conventional side entirely for granted.

Now, granted, catastrophism isn't the answer for everything. Velikovsky went WAAAAY too far. But in calmly and rationally weighing the evidence, SOMETHING happened at the close of the last ice age that seems to go beyond mere climate change.

If you disagree, that's fine. I'm just explaining my feelings on that.

I think you might want to first check some of the dates for those monuments.

Gobekl Tepe- 10,000 BC in Turkey
Tiahunaco - 1500 BC in MesoAmerica
Mount Shoria- geology, not human activity

Tiahuanaco is conventionally dated to 1500 BC, yes. The problem is that the incredibly sophisticated megalithic architecture there, doesn't fit what we know of that culture. It seems like a case of a later culture making use of an earlier, pre-existing site, which is what Graham Hancock proposed in Magicians of the Gods.

I probably shouldn't have cited Mount Shoria, since that's the one I'm least familiar with, so I'll leave that one alone.

None of the civilizations that had writing expressed the idea of the Earth being the perfection of heaven. I hope you'll take some time to read translations of works from these cultures (modern translations - not Budge!) Servant sacrifice was practiced in Egypt for only about 200 years, and there's no evidence of anyone burying anyone alive as a practice in any culture. It makes for great drama in the opera, Aida,but doesn't seem to be a real practice.

Likewise,there's not much evidence of sacred prostitution as being a "real thing" - and it certainly wasn't a practice in Egypt! en.wikipedia.org...

Not much use of mind-altering drugs, either. Wine, yes. Other things... not really.

And the countries themselves did not define themselves with constellations (also, the ones that Hancock refers to are Greek constellations (not those of the other civilizations.) The way that Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians grouped the stars into constellations was very different than that.

The big weakness is that you, like many others, skip over the key elements of Plato's story:
*Atlantis conquered all the known world EXCEPT for Athens.
*It sank and became a huge stretch of impassible mud flats.
* Athens defeated it with technology that was Early Bronze Age.

No, other way around. Heaven was the perfection, earth was merely the reflection. And that concept shows up in both Egypt and Mesoamerica. Not all of the concepts showed up in all of the supposed colonies of Atlantis. Sacred prostitution was in Mesopotamia, rather than Egypt, for instance. And yes, I've read various translations of ancient literature -- a lot of which I've found on the 'net, but some from other sources (not simply Budge, which I don't even own).

*snort* Not much use of mind-altering drugs? Are you serious? That's HUGE in Mesoamerica, and then there's the coc aine mummies from Egypt. Yes, it was a real thing, in more than one culture.

Also, yes, I'm aware that there were VARIATIONS on how the constellations were grouped by the different ancient cultures (and Hancock admits as much). Even so, there were some common groupings and Orion seems to be one of them. He's simply using the Greek names for ease of understanding.

As far as what Plato wrote, yes, I'm very well aware of it. I've read both the Critias and Timaeus multiple times. Basically, Atlantis started out more peaceful, establishing colonies all over the place, and then eventually became much more warlike. Athens was supposedly the only place in the known world that managed to hold them off. But despite what Plato says, what seems to have ended the Atlantean domination wasn't a military victory, but a destruction of their homeland.

And it's Plato's description of that destruction which is the basis for my own personal belief in where Atlantis was -- where the Sargasso Sea is today.

Damon

Durg, somehow the rest of my reply got cut off. Now I'll have to retype it. -_-

originally posted by: Byrd
Gobekl Tepe- 10,000 BC in Turkey
Tiahunaco - 1500 BC in MesoAmerica
Mount Shoria- geology, not human activity

As far as Tiahuanaco being conventionally dated to 1500 BC, yes, but the problem is that the highly sophisticated megalithic architecture of the site doesn't match what we know of that culture. Instead, it seems like a later culture simply re-used an existing, earlier site, which is what Hancock proposed in Magicians of the Gods.

None of the civilizations that had writing expressed the idea of the Earth being the perfection of heaven. I hope you'll take some time to read translations of works from these cultures (modern translations - not Budge!) Servant sacrifice was practiced in Egypt for only about 200 years, and there's no evidence of anyone burying anyone alive as a practice in any culture. It makes for great drama in the opera, Aida,but doesn't seem to be a real practice.

No, other way around. Heaven is the perfection, earth is the reflection. And that concept was prevalent in both Egypt and Mesoamerica. And yes, I've read different ancient literature. Mainly translations from the 'net, along with a few other sources. (And not Budge, which I don't even own.)

And child sacrifice was NEVER practiced by the Egyptians. It was abhorrent to them.
Likewise,there's not much evidence of sacred prostitution as being a "real thing" - and it certainly wasn't a practice in Egypt!en.wikipedia.org...

Sacred prostitution was in Mesopotamia rather than Egypt. Again, not all of these ancient cultures displayed all of these cultural traits.

Not much use of mind-altering drugs, either. Wine, yes. Other things... not really.

*snort* Are you serious? Mind-altering drugs (Peyote, etc.) were HUGE in Mesoamerica. And then there are the coc aine mummies from Egypt. Yes, it was a real thing.

And the countries themselves did not define themselves with constellations (also, the ones that Hancock refers to are Greek constellations (not those of the other civilizations.) The way that Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians grouped the stars into constellations was very different than that.

Yes, I'm aware that there were VARIATIONS on the way ancient constellations were depicted by the different ancient cultures, but there were commonalities too. Orion was one of them. Hancock mentions this very thing in Magicians of the Gods. Orion seems to have been important to a number of ancient cultures, Egypt being the main one, but there were other constellations that were mapped onto the ground by other ancient cultures, too.

The big weakness is that you, like many others, skip over the key elements of Plato's story:
*Atlantis conquered all the known world EXCEPT for Athens.
*It sank and became a huge stretch of impassible mud flats.
* Athens defeated it with technology that was Early Bronze Age.

Yes, I've read both the Timaeus and Critias many times. Atlantis was originally supposedly peaceful, establishing colonies all over the place, and then became much more warlike. Athens was supposedly the only power able to stand up to Atlantis, although it seems that they won more by the virtue of Atlantis being destroyed than a permanent, decisive military victory.

As far as Atlantis sinking, it's precisely Plato's description of that (and his mention of there being a small remnant of land left behind) which leads me to believe that Atlantis was originally where the Sargasso Sea is today.

Damon

a reply to: damonjc

Since you mentioned Firestone and West, if you have not read Baillie's "Arthur to Exodus" or Clube and Napiers "Cosmic Serpent" I highly recommend both, but read Clube and Napier first as it the astrophysical foundation for the injection of "comets" in to inner solar orbits.

Baillie's work in dendrochronology has refined timelines for historical events going back to the pliestocene/holocene transition, and he has also identified dating inconsistencies in several ice core samples and helped clarify those times lines in terms of extra terrestrial material spikes(platinum, iriduim and ammonia) in those ice core samples.

Here is Baillie and McAneney's latest paper on the major climate anomalies during the 3rd millenia BC.

Abstract
Much evidence exists for the major climate anomaly c2200-2000 BC. In this paper, we demonstrate that precisely dated Irish bog oaks record this climatic event, which appears to begin abruptly in 2206 BC and last until around 1900 BC. However, it might be unwise to ignore the precisely dated, abrupt environmental downturn that occurs some 150 years earlier. Irish and English oak tree rings draw attention to a notable decade-long growth downturn spanning 2354 BC to 2345 BC with hints of inundation. Interest in this apparently localized inundation led to the discovery that traditions from around the world specify dated stories within 10 years of 2350 BC. These stories involve the Chinese emperor Yao (traditional date 2357 BC), who presided over a series of catastrophes, including floods, in 2346 BC; Archbishop Ussher who used the dates 2349-2348 BC for the biblical Flood; and the ‘birth’ of three Mayan deities, GI, GII and GIII in the year 2360 BC. Why, one might ask, should people around the northern hemisphere have generated stories that appear to hark back to a two decade window between 2360 BC and 2340 BC? Furthermore, a smoothed growth response for North European trees suggests the existence of a 37 year cycle of reduced growth, hinting that the events around 2350 BC and 2200-2000 BC may be related. One possible scenario to account for these various observations is that something happened in the sky around this time with memorable consequences for those on the ground; a scenario highly compatible with controversial evidence for an anomalous dust deposition event observed at Tell Leilan in Syria. Overall, this unusual accumulation of evidence, including similarities in stories from widely separated areas, suggests that the scenario be treated seriously as a basis for further research.

I added the bold
Why we shouldn't ignore the mid 23rd century BC when discussing 2200-200 BC climate anomaly

Courty and Wiess first wrote about the startling evidence of odd events at Tell Leilan more than 30 years ago, when they discovered evidence of widespread biomass burning and the destruction of mudbrick buildings who's debris was overlain with a colluvial wash of amorphorous carbon deposits.

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: damonjc

Since you mentioned Firestone and West, if you have not read Baillie's "Arthur to Exodus" or Clube and Napiers "Cosmic Serpent" I highly recommend both, but read Clube and Napier first as it the astrophysical foundation for the injection of "comets" in to inner solar orbits.

Thanks for the reference, I'll check them out.

Damon

originally posted by: frenchfries
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Well an island that isn't very logical ?

Atlantis was very advanced.Think about it advanced civilizations always want to expand. combine that with the plethora of megaliths that exist on our planet Almost all of them made in the same style and I think it's save to say that Atlantis wasn't a island at all but the name of the former worldwide civilication.

The description we are given is of an island, so it isn't illogical at all. Having control in other areas is quite possible for an island nation, proven by British conquest, which is a matter of historical fact.

hello, very interesting thread and thanks for putting it on ats.

i don't have much to add, other than that it seems some parts of history still remains hidden for some reason. Maybe over history is much older than even current model of evolution seems to imply?
For me this would mean that time has buried a lot of things deep underground, snow or sea, still waiting to be discovered.

and maybe in the future things will change about such views...maybe not.

anyways... i recommend these two pages for interested people who likes alternative history:

earthbeforeflood.com...
megaliths.org...

both sites very good with a lot of interesting information which you will not find in official mainstream history or considered by official academia...for now.
They include a lot of megalithic sites and other sweet candies