Atlantis and the Biblical City of Tyre (2 parts)

originally posted by: Byrd
Not really. They had records of the pharaohs but not a lot of detailed history - much of it has been destroyed by the ancient Egyptians themselves as they reused temple blocks and inscriptions for other monuments (which were then torn down and reused again.) Nor were the stories the basis of their creation literature (there are three separate cosmogenies that we know of and it would not be utterly surprising if another minor one turned up.)

Yes, they did have different cosmogonies, but because their myths weren't intended to be interpreted literally, I don't see why they couldn't have used different aspects of their history as inspiration for all three of them. Also, I think we're talking about two different things. You're talking about preserved history -- of which I agree a lot has been destroyed, not least of which in the Great Library at Alexandria -- and I'm talking about the historical records that they themselves had, and that, for instance, Manetho used for his sources. And unfortunately, we don't know how much, or how little, those records contained. What we have to work with is either the fragmentary inscriptions, some papyri, or attempting to work backwards from the creation literature and trying to understand what it meant.

I'm basically doing that very thing with Genesis 1-3. I haven't yet gotten into trying to parse out the Egyptian creation mythology in this thread -- although it's been done before. (I can't recall which book I read it in, though, since most of my books are in storage. I do recall that they relied on EAE Reymond's "The Mythical Origins of the Egyptian Temple" which used the Edfu texts as its source.)

I found this interesting, but am not convinced here (do you have some sources I can look at?) Maps of the area show that the three overland routes of the Levant did not include Jerusalem but did include Jericho. (source: Biblical Archaeology website)

(for anyone interested, map of the Levant showing major cities of antiquity)

Interesting. It looks like the "Ridge Route" as it's labeled in the first source, is the one I was talking about. "Jebus" was later renamed Jerusalem.

And I don't have a reference offhand. Basically, I attended a Torah Study for a few years where a well-educated rabbi decided one year to not stop the yearly reading cycle at the end of Deuteronomy, and continued on beginning with Joshua. We went all the way through Malachi (including Ezekiel) and were starting Ezra by the time I moved out of the area, and I'm relating what I learned from that Torah Study. I'm pretty sure there IS a scholarly reference for that interpretation in some Jewish commentary, but I haven't actually gone and looked myself. So I guess don't take my word for it.

Some of the Biblical scholars believe that it means he equated the Prince of Tyre with Satan. (see Coffman)

Yes, I'm well aware of that interpretation. However, I'm approaching this without adding on the layers of later biblical interpretation from Christian scholars. I don't claim to be either Jewish or Christian, but I'm only looking at Jewish methods of interpretation for the time being.

As with other nations mentioned in the Bible, there's no actual correspondence between the Biblical version of the names of the leaders and the actual kings who sat on the throne. (I looked this up because I knew that Hiram was a more modern name, and if this was recording something from 800 BC or earlier, then "Hiram" is a mark that something hinky is going on. en.wikipedia.org...)

The source you linked doesn't describe the hinkyness (if that's even a word?) that you mentioned. Would you mind citing a reference on that?

Damon

originally posted by: ancientthunder
Ok marduk, lets get it straight there is nowhere in this thread that states, "Thy must know everything about Plato’s lost city", that is an assumption that you make. to assume can be easily seen to be ignorant!! Now the fact that you assume that you know more about Plato makes you superior is another form of ignorance.

So what you're saying basically is that someone with more knowledge than you is ignorant. I suppose if I was like the OP with less knowledge you would say I was wonderfully informed. Listen up, I've read the dialogues of Plato countless times, I'm aware of the crap put out by Cayce, I've read pretty much every book ever published with Atlantis in the title, if that's ignorance of Atlantis mythology, then clearly, you are projecting ignorance and thinking its mine...
And that's you setting it straight is it. lol

originally posted by: ancientthunder
That is implied by your tone and superior attitude. Of course you can deny that, but most can read between the lines and see.

You are the one saying I'm superior to the knowledge expounded by the OP, stating the obvious is your forte

originally posted by: ancientthunder
I give you an example so you may see the difference. I was hanging with a group of archaeologist a year ago and one archaeologist said that the Romans were very much in to shaving their hair off, much like many people do today. I answered smiling " I find that hard to believe" She looked at me and said " Just look it up on the net and you will be surprised what you will find" So I said," OK I will do! and that I did. Surprise, I found out she was apparently spot on. This is how it works when you have a little style and that is a style that precisely at the moment you are not worthy of. At least for now, Ill leave some room for master marduk to update. As for the door, I step through and say thanks my friend.

If you weren't aware that humans have been shaving their hair for thousands of years then that would not be my ignorance either, again its yours. Ancient Celts even used hair gel for their Mohawks. Bet you didn't know that either

originally posted by: ancientthunder

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: ancientthunder
Thanks for that reply that was exactly what I was expecting from you, good work. Dont forget to cross your t's. a reply to: Marduk

Your entire contribution to this thread so far has been to claim that Tyre sounds similar to Atlantis because it has a "T" in it, which reveals that you don't know the first thing about Platos lost city, it wasn't actually called Atlantis in real life, Plato just gave it that name because no one could translate its real one.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out

Ok marduk, lets get it straight there is nowhere in this thread that states, "Thy must know everything about Plato’s lost city", that is an assumption that you make.

So, your argument is that even a person that is completely unfamiliar with Plato's Timaeus and Critias can develop a reasonable argument for the existence of Atlantis, a place named ONLY in Plato's Timaeus and Critias in ancient times?

How about if I come up with an hypothesis about you and your world view, without ever having met you, and ignoring anything you've posted here?

Harte

gotcha real good and that was what my message is for you!not only that you know it which is even better.a reply to: Marduk

harte I have no argument, so you are falling in to assumptions also. Now what I do have is a view and I will say what I what I want to say about the subject. As for Marduk he span the door in his own face. Now you have your view and so far I respect that, might be that you hold some style. s# reply to: Harte

originally posted by: ancientthunder
gotcha real good and that was what my message is for you!not only that you know it which is even better.a reply to: Marduk

I'm sure you think you know what you're talking about with these comments, I however need a translator


You were claiming that having no knowledge at all was an advantage last I heard

I doubt you've taken the time to read Critias or Timaeus, because none of your posts evidence any knowledge of either.
That's pretty poor considering you're posting in an Atlantis thread.

Atlantis had an Eden of its own. In fact, the "Eden" in Genesis 1-3 would have been a "New Eden" as it were, named after the original.

a reply to: damonjc
Now to continue with the original thread in the manner in which it was started. Now with no offence towards the OP, seeing as we are intelligent beings. We can say that the OP is giving forth an idea about something that yet has no proof whatsoever." Atlantis" None the less, because there is no proof it does not stop others from joining in to the idea or general direction of the OP. Those who feel it is pointless to offer an idea and have given forth their disagreement on such a talk, may now leave others who wish to engage with the original post to get on with their folly.

Traditionally, the favored derivation of the name "Eden" was from the Akkadian edinnu, derived from a Sumerian word meaning "plain" or "steppe". Eden is now believed to be more closely related to an Aramaic root word meaning "fruitful, well-watered.

If the above is true, we are not talking about an unusual place, but a fruitful and well watered place. It makes sense that another place could be home to an Eden in it. Not only that, if similar in appearance it could easily be named by the survivors ( if there where any) as the new Eden. I conclude here that the logic of the OP is good and feel the need to give the thumbs up here. Not saying that anything is definite of course, because that would not be PC. But I will say that the idea makes sense and could be considered as a possibility. Also I might add, that if there was a destruction of the possible place we now call Atlantis and that place did have survivors it would be very logical deduction that they may want to reproduce the home that they lost.
I like this idea you put forward in you original post, thanks for your good work. Appreciate your dedication. I will continue to view your comments on what you have to say on this subject.

You can agree with logic all you want, but the facts tell a different story
This statement

Traditionally, the favored derivation of the name "Eden" was from the Akkadian edinnu, derived from a Sumerian word meaning "plain" or "steppe". Eden is now believed to be more closely related to an Aramaic root word meaning "fruitful, well-watered.

Is completely unattested and easily provable nonsense

Here is the Eden word page from the electronic Pennsylvanian Sumerian dictionary (an academic resource)
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
As you can see the word has been in use since 3000BCE, that's about 2000 years older than Aramaic
and here is the page for Adam
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
Where the word is a description for a steppe dweller.
So your New Eden is actually from a word that predates Plato by 2500 years

So can you provide evidence for a time machine that would allow what you are claiming is from an Aramaic root, to be older than a word attested more than 2000 years earlier and that iirc, the entire concept was dreamt up during the diaspora, when the Hebrews were slaves of the Babylonians, who's language the word appears in

Nope, thought not

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: ancientthunder
gotcha real good and that was what my message is for you!not only that you know it which is even better.a reply to: Marduk

I'm sure you think you know what you're talking about with these comments, I however need a translator

You were claiming that having no knowledge at all was an advantage last I heard

I doubt you've taken the time to read Critias or Timaeus, because none of your posts evidence any knowledge of either.
That's pretty poor considering you're posting in an Atlantis thread.

So what?
At least he recognized that I gots style!

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
[
So what?
At least he recognized that I gots style!

Harte

Is there a credible source for that one

Returning to this challenging discussion. I'm obviously on the "Atlantis is a myth" faction but am willing to look at things.

originally posted by: damonjc
Setting that question aside for the moment, let's consider the similarities between Tyre and Atlantis:
* Both were situated, not just on a coastline, but on an actual island

Tyre was founded on the mainland. By the time of Alexander the Great (who could forget his magnificent assault on Tyre?), the administrative area and the wealthy and so forth were on the fortified island. But that's not how it started out.

* Both were major purveyors of maritime trade

I don't see a mention in Plato of Atlantis being a major player in trade.

* Both were supposed to have been in God's graces (ethically speaking) at one point

With those similarities, it's no wonder that Tyre could have been used, in literary fashion, as a type of Atlantis.

IF they knew of Atlantis.... but with such loose parameters, any a good (or better) argument could be made for Cypress, Sardinia, any of the Greek islands, and so on and so forth.


But now let's consider the literary link in the "days" of Genesis 1 to Atlantis. If the (re)creation of Genesis 1 is recording the aftermath of Atlantis' destruction, then it stands to reason that whoever the author(s) of Genesis 1-3 were, they were descended from the survivors of Atlantis. And then the reference to "Eden" in the description of Tyre becomes more understandable.

Atlantis had an Eden of its own. In fact, the "Eden" in Genesis 1-3 would have been a "New Eden" as it were, named after the original.

I don't think this idea can be supported, since every culture that has stories of a "before time" has tales of a wonderful land. They all have some commonalities (no suffering, plenty of food and resources) and they are all different at the same time.

In addition, there's no physical evidence of a large hegemony ruling the Levant and the Mediterranean before Alexander showed up (or after Alexander, to be truthful.)

a reply to: Marduk

Frogs were one of the Plagues. I'm not a an expert on Egypt but, weren't they a symbol of fertility and good luck? How is that a a Plague? Kinda like me cursing you with winning lottery tickets.

originally posted by: anton74
a reply to: Marduk

Frogs were one of the Plagues. I'm not a an expert on Egypt but, weren't they a symbol of fertility and good luck? How is that a a Plague? Kinda like me cursing you with winning lottery tickets.

The only species of frog present in Egypt at that time, was Rana esculenta, the edible frog
So the Israelites supplied dinner

originally posted by: Byrd
Tyre was founded on the mainland. By the time of Alexander the Great (who could forget his magnificent assault on Tyre?), the administrative area and the wealthy and so forth were on the fortified island. But that's not how it started out.

Umm...at the time of the Babylonian attack on Tyre under Nebuchadnezzar II (586-573 BCE), wasn't Tyre already situated on the island? I understand if it was founded on the mainland earlier, but if Ezekiel's point of reference was this Babylonian siege, then doesn't that count for the similarity I mentioned?

I don't see a mention in Plato of Atlantis being a major player in trade.

Quoting from Critias:

Leaving the palace and passing out across the three you came to a wall which began at the sea and went all round: this was everywhere distant fifty stadia from the largest zone or harbour, and enclosed the whole, the ends meeting at the mouth of the channel which led to the sea. The entire area was densely crowded with habitations; and the canal and the largest of the harbours were full of vessels and merchants coming from all parts, who, from their numbers, kept up a multitudinous sound of human voices, and din and clatter of all sorts night and day.

If they had "merchants coming from all parts," they had trade, and a lot of it.

IF they knew of Atlantis.... but with such loose parameters, any a good (or better) argument could be made for Cypress, Sardinia, any of the Greek islands, and so on and so forth.

Argument for what? For the location of Atlantis, or for its later, historical type? If the former, I wasn't talking about where Atlantis was. If the latter, that may be so, but Ezekiel was the one who wrote concerning Tyre, not me. I'm simply suggesting an alternative to the commonly held position that he was simply a bad prognosticator.

I don't think this idea (of a new Eden) can be supported, since every culture that has stories of a "before time" has tales of a wonderful land. They all have some commonalities (no suffering, plenty of food and resources) and they are all different at the same time.

True, but that still begs the question, why did Ezekiel link Tyre with Eden in his execration text?

In addition, there's no physical evidence of a large hegemony ruling the Levant and the Mediterranean before Alexander showed up (or after Alexander, to be truthful.)

I'm not necessarily taking what Plato says about Atlantis in the Timaeus and the Critias at face value. Then again, part of the reason I'm approaching the subject of Atlantis from these different directions (literary analysis, etc.) is to eventually eliminate potential contenders for the actual location. As you said, there's no physical evidence of a large hegemony ruling the Levant and Mediterranean...at least within historical memory.

Let me leave it at that for now, since I'd rather not get into more detail just yet. I'm trying to keep these posts as self-contained as possible, although I might divert for the next one into a short review of David Rohl's "The Lords of Avaris" to discuss just what can be known about the peoples living close to the Mediterranean prior to the fall of Troy.

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: anton74
a reply to: Marduk

Frogs were one of the Plagues. I'm not a an expert on Egypt but, weren't they a symbol of fertility and good luck? How is that a a Plague? Kinda like me cursing you with winning lottery tickets.

The only species of frog present in Egypt at that time, was Rana esculenta, the edible frog
So the Israelites supplied dinner

Kinda like me being cursed with endless chicken wings. Oh, the horror.

Serves no purpose. EZEKIEL for instance was written by who then were considered to be nothing but a bunch of perverts at sexual practices they were continuesly warned not to do as the devolving was observed and is ongoing while all the book did was explain in detail what happened when the towers collapsed and why it happened. There is nothing else in that book referring to the plane people reading the book are.
That kind of stuff isn't written sitting in a cave praying.

originally posted by: damonjc

originally posted by: Byrd
Tyre was founded on the mainland. By the time of Alexander the Great (who could forget his magnificent assault on Tyre?), the administrative area and the wealthy and so forth were on the fortified island. But that's not how it started out.

Umm...at the time of the Babylonian attack on Tyre under Nebuchadnezzar II (586-573 BCE), wasn't Tyre already situated on the island? I understand if it was founded on the mainland earlier, but if Ezekiel's point of reference was this Babylonian siege, then doesn't that count for the similarity I mentioned?

It was in both places. "Old Tyre" was on the mainland (and was called "Old Tyre"... at least in the maps we used in class.) The government and the elites were in the walled fortress island. Everybody else was on the mainland.

Quoting from Critias:

Leaving the palace and passing out across the three you came to a wall which began at the sea and went all round: this was everywhere distant fifty stadia from the largest zone or harbour, and enclosed the whole, the ends meeting at the mouth of the channel which led to the sea. The entire area was densely crowded with habitations; and the canal and the largest of the harbours were full of vessels and merchants coming from all parts, who, from their numbers, kept up a multitudinous sound of human voices, and din and clatter of all sorts night and day.

Point taken.

IF they knew of Atlantis.... but with such loose parameters, any a good (or better) argument could be made for Cypress, Sardinia, any of the Greek islands, and so on and so forth.

Argument for what? For the location of Atlantis, or for its later, historical type? If the former, I wasn't talking about where Atlantis was. If the latter, that may be so, but Ezekiel was the one who wrote concerning Tyre, not me. I'm simply suggesting an alternative to the commonly held position that he was simply a bad prognosticator.

Given all his other failed prognostications in the execration texts, I think the latter is more probable than him being the only person to write about Atlantis.

I don't think this idea (of a new Eden) can be supported, since every culture that has stories of a "before time" has tales of a wonderful land. They all have some commonalities (no suffering, plenty of food and resources) and they are all different at the same time.

True, but that still begs the question, why did Ezekiel link Tyre with Eden in his execration text?

To contrast what they had with what they were (supposedly) going to get. This is common in all types of literature, where there's a golden past/golden age and someone's foretelling Dire Things about the future.

And recall what Ezekiel says just a few chapters later:

ll the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.

Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.

The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.

I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.

Again a reference to Eden and a direct reference to "The Assyrian." He goes on to compare the Pharaoh to a tree in Eden. He is not describing another place-- the rest of the chapter makes it clear that he is talking about the Biblical Eden (which was nothing like Atlantis.)

although I might divert for the next one into a short review of David Rohl's "The Lords of Avaris" to discuss just what can be known about the peoples living close to the Mediterranean prior to the fall of Troy.

A lot of us have a problem with Rohl's attempt to revise the chronology (an effort that gets weaker with each new find.) However, I do know a little bit about the Hyksos and Avairs and Seqenenre Tao's (I always misspell that and it looks wrong even when I spell it right!) revolt and Queen Ahmose and her sons.

originally posted by: anton74
a reply to: Marduk

Frogs were one of the Plagues. I'm not a an expert on Egypt but, weren't they a symbol of fertility and good luck? How is that a a Plague? Kinda like me cursing you with winning lottery tickets.

You are thinking of the goddess Heket, goddess of fruitfulness and childbirth. I don't know that they'd have welcomed zillions of them hopping around, except as dinner. (lil' link on Hequet)

originally posted by: Byrd
It was in both places. "Old Tyre" was on the mainland (and was called "Old Tyre"... at least in the maps we used in class.) The government and the elites were in the walled fortress island. Everybody else was on the mainland.

Okay. In any case, it's interesting that Ezekiel's description of Tyre doesn't necessarily fit what we know of the city. The description of Tyre as being "at the entrance of the sea" (Eze 27:3) isn't all that accurate, but its description as being "in the middle of the seas" (vv. 4, 25-27, 32) is much less so. Its punishment seems to have been to sink into the sea (Eze. 26:19), something that doesn't really fit ancient Tyre unless Ezekiel was anticipating an earthquake or a tsunami. And did ancient Tyre actually have its own standing army? (v. 27)

Given all his other failed prognostications in the execration texts, I think the latter is more probable than him being the only person to write about Atlantis.

You're entitled to your opinion.

(Why compare Tyre with Eden)

To contrast what they had with what they were (supposedly) going to get. This is common in all types of literature, where there's a golden past/golden age and someone's foretelling Dire Things about the future.

And recall what Ezekiel says just a few chapters later:

ll the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations.

Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.

The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.

I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth.

Again a reference to Eden and a direct reference to "The Assyrian." He goes on to compare the Pharaoh to a tree in Eden. He is not describing another place-- the rest of the chapter makes it clear that he is talking about the Biblical Eden (which was nothing like Atlantis.)

I haven't yet gotten into the comparison between Egypt and Eden, but I suppose I can go into that now.

Firstly, in looking at the chiastic structure of Ezekiel, we see something very interesting:

A - Ezekiel 1-11 - God comes to his temple, judges it and departs
B - Ezekiel 12-23 - Oracles of judgement against Israel
C - Ezekiel 24 - Jerusalem besieged
D - Ezekiel 25-32 - Oracles against foreign nations
C' - Ezekiel 33 - Jerusalem falls
B' - Ezekiel 34-49 - Oracles of restoration
A' - Ezekiel 40-48 - God comes to his temple and remains there

Notice anything unusual about this?

How about, why in the hell are the oracles against foreign nations the central point of focus in this whole literary work?

Good question! And I propose that they have something very significant to do with WHY Jerusalem falls. And that significance doesn't just have to do with trade rivalries (Eze. 26:2) or because Egypt was an unreliable ally (Eze. 29:7-8).

This goes back to the literary allusions that Ezekiel makes concerning both Tyre and Egypt. He's setting the context for their failures in terms of a creation myth -- hence the references to Eden. He's basically saying that these were their failures from the time of "creation" as it were.

Interestingly, the term that Ezekiel uses to describe Pharaoh in Ezekiel 26:3 is a tannim, the same word used in Genesis 1:21 -- there translated "great whales." Basically, the word should be translated as "crocodile" here.

Why the focus on Tyre and Egypt? Because in Ezekiel's day, they were the main inheritors of the wisdom tradition of Atlantis. If you want to look at things in terms of "original sin" as it were, Ezekiel was basically describing Tyre and Egypt's failings in those cosmic terms.

A lot of us have a problem with Rohl's attempt to revise the chronology (an effort that gets weaker with each new find.) However, I do know a little bit about the Hyksos and Avairs and Seqenenre Tao's (I always misspell that and it looks wrong even when I spell it right!) revolt and Queen Ahmose and her sons.

*nods* I guess I'm not expecting to find total agreement on anything I post, but the whole point of posting these series of posts is to present the idea that Atlantis not only did exist, but it had a major and lasting influence on many ancient cultures, including that of the bible. But in order to properly present that, I'll need to sort out what *can* be known about the Aegean civilizations prior to the fall of Troy, and that unfortunately means delving into the Gordian knot of the Greek Dark Ages.

It's not really my area of expertise, but what I can say for sure is that there are unrecognized problems with conventional Egyptian chronology that have ramifications across the whole of the ancient near east, problems that confuse the issues surrounding Atlantis (the timing of the eruption of Thera, for instance) and prevent a proper understanding of it.

Damon

originally posted by: damonjc
Interestingly, the term that Ezekiel uses to describe Pharaoh in Ezekiel 26:3 is a tannim, the same word used in Genesis 1:21 -- there translated "great whales." Basically, the word should be translated as "crocodile" here.

Wow, so you are using the King James bible for your ideas on ancient cultures, a book which didn't exist until the middle ages,
FYI, that's the only version that claims that Tanniyn are whales, the original version has "sea monsters", the septuagent has "great creatures of the sea", so in any case, your claim for crocodiles seems made up because

The KJV translates Strongs H8577 (Tanniyn) in the following manner: dragon (21x), serpent (3x), whale (3x), sea monster (1x).



and what does Thera have to do with Atlantis, it erupted 7500 years after the destruction..

Quick question, do you know absolutely nothing about Mesopotamian culture, I mean, obviously you don't, because it doesn't really feature in the works of Graham Hancock does it..