Atlantis and the Biblical City of Tyre (2 parts)

originally posted by: Marduk
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).

I generally prefer not bothering to answer you, but since you raised a point that might be of general interest, I thought I'd go ahead and explain why I'm offering that translation. The basic meaning of "tanniyn" is "something elongated". The translators attempted to fit their interpretation of that to the context, and they didn't always do the best job. Yes, a serpent is elongated. Yes, a whale is elongated. But if Pharaoh is being described as a tanniyn in the Nile River, then the most likely interpretation is a crocodile, not a whale, dragon, or whatever.

Damon

I am sure Marduk and Harte will have very small-minded and hateful responses to this bc it has not been technically "scientifically proven" but if we all stayed within the bounds of "scientifically proven" then we get nowhere, just safe scientifically proven but un-creative thoughts...

but we were all once inhabitants of Atlantis in past lives. If we could concentrate, meditate, put our minds at use (the part we never use) then we would probably be able to pull up some memories. I have never done this but want to try. I think the Atlantis theorists would enjoy Edgar Cayce's book on Atlantis. It compiles his readings that he did for his subjects that had a past Atlantic life and brings together a very vivid picture of what it was like.

a reply to: veracity

I'm not a believer in past lives, although I *am* a believer in genetic memory. I actually know someone who has described places they've gone, before they actually went, in unerring detail. And who "remembers" escaping from a volcanic eruption in a boat. (Maybe Pompeii? They're not sure.)

Damon

a reply to: damonjc

Interesting, could be

genetic memory.

a reply to: damonjc
Yes I agree genetic memory makes a lot of sense, all it needs is to be triggered. Many people choose to deny certain memories because its easier to stick to what is the social norm. Its like a safety net for the insecure. An uncomfortable truth can be replaced by a fixed notion of history. Be in personal history or our collective history.

genetic memory.

a reply to: damonjc
Yes I agree genetic memory makes a lot of sense, all it needs is to be triggered. Many people choose to deny certain memories because its easier to stick to what is the social norm. Its like a safety net for the insecure. An uncomfortable truth can be replaced by a fixed notion of history. Be in personal history or our collective history.

originally posted by: damonjc
The basic meaning of "tanniyn" is "something elongated".

bollox, you are way beyond the facts here, what is your source for "something elongated".
Graham Hancock again, or just your personal delusion once more...

Noticed you didn't even try to answer my other questions. too difficult for you ???

originally posted by: damonjc
The basic meaning of "tanniyn" is "something elongated".

bollox, you are way beyond the facts here, what is your source for "something elongated".
Graham Hancock again, or just your personal delusion once more...

Noticed you didn't even try to answer my other questions. too difficult for you ???

originally posted by: damonjc
a reply to: veracity

I'm not a believer in past lives, although I *am* a believer in genetic memory. I actually know someone who has described places they've gone, before they actually went, in unerring detail. And who "remembers" escaping from a volcanic eruption in a boat. (Maybe Pompeii? They're not sure.)

Damon

WOW, so its a conspiracy of delusional fantasists

I really enjoy reading the post and comments about Atlantis ever since I saw Jacques Cousteau exploring the Atlantic ocean back in the 70's. His groups of explorers finding those massive carved stone blocks placed one after another, on the oceans bottom and then suddenly disappearing really caught my attention.
Later in life, after reading about the account of the city/nation state of Tyrus in the book of Ezekiel, my interest was renewed. To help in understanding these theories and their possible relevance to the big picture I submit these things.

God stated to the nation Tyrus and it's king (Tyrannus?) that it would NEVER BE FOUND AGAIN (Ezek. 26:21, 27:36)
Recent post on other sites state that they have found two underwater pyramids possibly claiming to be from Atlantis.

Let's wait and see if this story (like many others ) will be verified as EVIDENCE (as I know ATS loves evidence) or if the word of God will be fulfilled and this story will simply be FORGOTTEN.

originally posted by: veracity
I am sure Marduk and Harte will have very small-minded and hateful responses to this bc it has not been technically "scientifically proven" but if we all stayed within the bounds of "scientifically proven" then we get nowhere, just safe scientifically proven but un-creative thoughts....

Ahh the simpleton resonse, "I have inferior knowledge of the facts, therefore, I will simply attack the orthodoxy which I've never done anything but complain about"

originally posted by: veracity
but we were all once inhabitants of Atlantis in past lives. If we could concentrate, meditate, put our minds at use (the part we never use) then we would probably be able to pull up some memories. I have never done this but want to try. I think the Atlantis theorists would enjoy Edgar Cayce's book on Atlantis. It compiles his readings that he did for his subjects that had a past Atlantic life and brings together a very vivid picture of what it was like.

And yet another ignorant post from someone who has never even read the source material.

You guys in your ignorance are doing all the fighting for us...

originally posted by: Yule C Mann
God stated to the nation Tyrus and it's king (Tyrannus?) that it would NEVER BE FOUND AGAIN (Ezek. 26:21, 27:36)
Recent post on other sites state that they have found two underwater pyramids possibly claiming to be from Atlantis.

Let's wait and see if this story (like many others ) will be verified as EVIDENCE (as I know ATS loves evidence) or if the word of God will be fulfilled and this story will simply be FORGOTTEN.

Imho, that could be interpreted in different ways. Ezekiel 26:20 basically explains that the inhabitants of Tyre would be completely killed off, "going down into the pit" (the grave). Imho, verse 21 means that the story of Tyre would be like a scary/cautionary tale (a "terror") because there weren't any survivors. It's the survivors who wouldn't be found again, to rebuild the city -- at least as far as this passage is concerned. (Historically, that didn't happen till at least the time of Alexander the Great, and as I recall, there were survivors.)

Damon

a reply to: Marduk

Hmmm...I don't complain about the orthodoxy?

Very good points here, it reminds me of space 2001 where Dave finally brakes away from Hal 2000 the fixed and programmed computer. Some just are not able to brake out and that is fine also. The OP is offering another view on the topic of Atlantis. For some of us, Atlantis represents another time on this planet, where power seemed to be mainly stuck firmly in the hands of one group of people. Here we are able to talk about lost civilizations and the archaeological remains point to a worldwide group of builders, with great abilities. Now there is plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that we (as in our current society) would love to think we are the most amazing humans ever. But, I offer the view that we are linked to our ancestors with their good and bad points. To remember them is to the honour them, to pooh pooh them is childish a reply to: veracity

originally posted by: damonjc
Okay. In any case, it's interesting that Ezekiel's description of Tyre doesn't necessarily fit what we know of the city.

As far as we can tell, he never visited it. Wikipedia gives a biography for him (as much as weknow about him) en.wikipedia.org...

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.

He didn't know anything about geology or tectonics and, as with Cayce, the idea of a city "just sinking" probably made sense.

And did ancient Tyre actually have its own standing army? (v. 27)

They had a navy, but their army was mostly mercenary troops.

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?

I think that you can run into a lot of problems here with the text.
First: the book was not written with numbers - the numbering of chapters first appears around 1100 AD and verse numbering systems started about 1500 AD. So you can't say that the oracles were "the central point of focus."

It appears to be the central point from the numbering system inflicted on it and the translation and editing done to the book.

Secondly, he didn't write it... or didn't write the final version. As you know, the history of these books is very complex and the KJV that I was using is not quite the same as the Masoretic text. And this is a rather long-winded way of saying that we can't be sure what was in the original document or when exactly it was created -and that its various editors and copyists may have tweaked it to bring focus on certain things.

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.

I'm going to have to disagree here - while he does talk of them as fabulous places, it's in line with other descriptions of other fabulous places (none of which were Eden.)

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.

Biblical translators have noted the inconsistent usage... "sea monster"might be a better choice. It's used frequently in situations where crocodiles clearly aren't meant.

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.

My knowledge of Tyre is very slight; however, I know a bit more about Egypt. So I have a question for you: "What are you identifying as the 'wisdom tradition' that existed in Egypt?"

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.

You've taken an interesting approach, and your scholarship is also interesting.

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.

This could be interesting. I shall have to bookmark some references, I see.

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.

I think the bigger problem is that there's no record of it.

Look at it this way -- the Greeks preserved the tradition of the Trojan war in plays, statuary, motifs, literature, song, pottery, and more. You can find huge cratons with scenes from the war on them that match up with plays and poetry.

The story of Atlantis would be even MORE compelling to the Greeks - but there isn't a single scrap of pottery about Atlantis anywhere, nor any set of artifacts common around the Levant that can't be accounted for by a known culture.

I'm going to selectively answer what you wrote, not because I'm looking to avoid problems with my thesis or anything like that, but because I don't want to divert from the main topic.

originally posted by: Byrd
I think that you can run into a lot of problems here with the text.
First: the book was not written with numbers - the numbering of chapters first appears around 1100 AD and verse numbering systems started about 1500 AD. So you can't say that the oracles were "the central point of focus."

It appears to be the central point from the numbering system inflicted on it and the translation and editing done to the book.

Secondly, he didn't write it... or didn't write the final version. As you know, the history of these books is very complex and the KJV that I was using is not quite the same as the Masoretic text. And this is a rather long-winded way of saying that we can't be sure what was in the original document or when exactly it was created -and that its various editors and copyists may have tweaked it to bring focus on certain things.

Firstly, even if we leave out the modern chapter numbering system, the structure is still there. Secondly, reference #2 to the wiki article you linked to even admits that, save for only a few sections of the book (mainly chapters 40-48), most of the material can safely be attributed to Ezekiel himself, and it had to have been written during the sixth century BCE -- before the historical predictions mentioned in the book could be falsified. And the idea that the overall structure wouldn't necessarily have originated with Ezekiel is circular reasoning, by assuming that ancient biblical writers weren't schooled enough to create such a complex and well-structured piece of literature and therefore the structure we have now must have originated later, after the sixth century BCE.

One of the challenges in discussing biblical material in great detail like this is that we can easily end up splitting hairs over biblical scholarship, and I'd prefer to avoid doing that unless you think I'm missing something obvious. And fyi, I'm not *schooled* in biblical studies, but I've devoted many years of personal research to studying the text and attempting to sort out what it meant from a literary perspective. I've also done a lot of work with comparative literary research (and not just with biblical texts), and though I unfortunately don't read ancient Hebrew (or other ancient languages), I can say with certainty that biblical scholars tend to see more editing or later interpolation in a given text than is really there, simply because they don't take the literary analysis of the texts into account. Later interpolations are much more reliably spotted when looking at things from a literary standpoint. The same can be said when studying other ancient texts, historical records, etc.

Biblical translators have noted the inconsistent usage... "sea monster"might be a better choice. It's used frequently in situations where crocodiles clearly aren't meant.

Are you saying that Pharaoh is better described as a "sea monster" in the Nile River? (Eze. 29:3) And what other term would have been used if a crocodile *were* meant? Leviathan, perhaps?

My knowledge of Tyre is very slight; however, I know a bit more about Egypt. So I have a question for you: "What are you identifying as the 'wisdom tradition' that existed in Egypt?"

I would refer you to sources better equipped than I to answer that question, but in summary, the wisdom tradition that Egypt inherited included a mirroring of the perfection of heaven upon the Earth in the form of pyramids and temples, and a stellar cult that involved a belief that the pharaoh, upon death, would journey through the Milky Way to rejoin his ancestors in the constellation of Orion. The cosmic depictions of Horus (who represented the living pharaoh) apparently antedate historical Egypt by thousands of years, being found in Saharan rock art and on extremely ancient pottery dating close to eight thousand years ago.

I think the bigger problem is that there's no record of it.

Look at it this way -- the Greeks preserved the tradition of the Trojan war in plays, statuary, motifs, literature, song, pottery, and more. You can find huge cratons with scenes from the war on them that match up with plays and poetry.

The story of Atlantis would be even MORE compelling to the Greeks - but there isn't a single scrap of pottery about Atlantis anywhere, nor any set of artifacts common around the Levant that can't be accounted for by a known culture.

Well, it's actually mentioned in more than just Plato. Take a look here.

Damon

a reply to: Marduk
Science is amazing and wonderful, you don't use science to teach these amazing things, you just speak in the name of it to debunk what you believe not to be true. Just bc there is no scientific proof found does not mean it cannot be true.

You talk of "science" in a very demeaning and annoying fashion.

originally posted by: damonjc
Firstly, even if we leave out the modern chapter numbering system, the structure is still there. Secondly, reference #2 to the wiki article you linked to even admits that, save for only a few sections of the book (mainly chapters 40-48), most of the material can safely be attributed to Ezekiel himself, and it had to have been written during the sixth century BCE -- before the historical predictions mentioned in the book could be falsified. And the idea that the overall structure wouldn't necessarily have originated with Ezekiel is circular reasoning, by assuming that ancient biblical writers weren't schooled enough to create such a complex and well-structured piece of literature and therefore the structure we have now must have originated later, after the sixth century BCE.

Okay. I can go along with that. I should take a side-excursion and see if such structures are common as a rule in Babylonian literature.

Biblical translators have noted the inconsistent usage... "sea monster"might be a better choice. It's used frequently in situations where crocodiles clearly aren't meant.

Are you saying that Pharaoh is better described as a "sea monster" in the Nile River? (Eze. 29:3) And what other term would have been used if a crocodile *were* meant? Leviathan, perhaps?

We don't know what the word really means, and translators have assigned it words that seemed to make sense. There weren't any crocodiles native to Mesopotamia, and the worship of Sobek had been in decline for awhile outside Nubia. You can, if you like, restate it as "crocodile" but it's not backed up by other examples at this time so your point isn't proven here.

My knowledge of Tyre is very slight; however, I know a bit more about Egypt. So I have a question for you: "What are you identifying as the 'wisdom tradition' that existed in Egypt?"

I would refer you to sources better equipped than I to answer that question, but in summary, the wisdom tradition that Egypt inherited included a mirroring of the perfection of heaven upon the Earth in the form of pyramids and temples,

...they had no such concept. Temples evolved over time into the huge structures of the New Kingdom (Karnak.) The most important part was the temple itself, dark and dim, where only the elites of the priesthood or pharaoh entered to wake the god's statue each day and prepare it (clothing it and presenting food) (this article goes into some detail about how complex their beliefs were)

and a stellar cult that involved a belief that the pharaoh, upon death, would journey through the Milky Way to rejoin his ancestors in the constellation of Orion.

Orion wasn't a single constellation, but was two constellations to them. And pharaoh didn't travel to Orion after his death- he traveled north to the "imperishable stars" that circle the North Pole. (a brief, not very detailed page about ancient Egyptians and stars.)

The cosmic depictions of Horus (who represented the living pharaoh) apparently antedate historical Egypt by thousands of years, being found in Saharan rock art and on extremely ancient pottery dating close to eight thousand years ago.

The depicted bird may not be Horus... and anyway, at that time he was a sun deity and not representative of the pharaoh. Horus changed quite a bit over those 3,000 years (TourEgypt page on Horus)

And none of these beliefs match the Levantine area beliefs.

So I ask again (and will warn you that this is an unsupportable point in Atlantis arguments), "what Atlantean Wisdom"?

I think the bigger problem is that there's no record of it.

Look at it this way -- the Greeks preserved the tradition of the Trojan war in plays, statuary, motifs, literature, song, pottery, and more. You can find huge cratons with scenes from the war on them that match up with plays and poetry.

The story of Atlantis would be even MORE compelling to the Greeks - but there isn't a single scrap of pottery about Atlantis anywhere, nor any set of artifacts common around the Levant that can't be accounted for by a known culture.

Well, it's actually mentioned in more than just Plato. Take a look here.

That's... a rather badly written page. The author is taking a point ("Look! The word 'Atlantikos!') and attaching all sorts of suppositions to it as fact. He wanders into the realm of "no fact and all imagination" when he gets to the section on Egypt. I can't comment on the Sanskrit section because this is a subject that I know very little of, but in looking at the rest of the page, I suspect someone with a better background could find a lot of fault.

So, no... the author hasn't supported your point. I was aware of the Daughters of Poseidon material, but what survives does not point to any suggestion that a land or island gets mentioned.

a reply to: Byrd

I think we're about at the point of needing to agree to disagree. I don't want to have to wade through my sources (which are, again, mostly in storage) to dredge out books and cite things to prove a point which, even if I could, is unlikely to influence your opinion of Atlantis. A good case in point where I think there *is* evidence to support my claim is the Egyptians mirroring the perfection of heaven onto Earth. Since I'm much less of an expert than the sources I've read which explained that in much greater detail and accuracy than I could, I'd rather not get into it at this point. As soon as I'm able to access my storage I might write more about it, but I think it's pretty clear that we each have our own, very different opinions of things that are unlikely to be swayed.

To me, the last link I provided is pretty compelling. To you, it's not. That's fine, and let's leave it on that note.

Damon

originally posted by: damonjc
a reply to: Byrd
A good case in point where I think there *is* evidence to support my claim is the Egyptians mirroring the perfection of heaven onto Earth. Since I'm much less of an expert than the sources I've read which explained that in much greater detail and accuracy than I could, I'd rather not get into it at this point.

At this point, I should probably tell you that I can read hieroglyphs (to some small degree) and that I've recently taken courses on the art and history of Egypt, so I have access to a lot of up-to-date materials. I think that if you actually ask yourself "who said Egyptians mirrored the perfection of Heaven onto Earth" you will not find the phrase anywhere in hieroglyphs.

And I believe that you'll have trouble getting a real consensus definition from your sources - I can, for example, give you exactly the translated wording from the Negative Confession of the Book of the Dead and you'll find multiple sources all agreeing on it and hieroglyphs (if you can read them) that confirm the translation. But I'll bet that you can't find anything similar on "wisdom of Atlantis." (have you tried checking Google Books for online copies of your favorite texts (or Google Scholar? ) You probably have. I'm merely interested in what you've been reading.)

They might be talking about the concept of "ma'at" - which is often explained as justice/truth/balance (etc) but that's not "perfection of heaven on earth" - and although other societies had common-sense systems of justice, each had their own unique spin on how it was practiced. So a claim of "ancient universal wisdom" based on Ma'at isn't supportable (and every time Egypt got conquered, the victors imposed their own systems of justice and culture on the Egyptians.)

a reply to: Byrd

Yes, I'm referring to something completely different. Basically, both Platonism and Gnosticism evolved out of concepts that were already extant in the Egyptian system of worship, but whereas both Platonism and Gnosticism considered matter to be "evil," the ancient Egyptians did not. Still, the dualistic concepts in Platonism and Gnosticism had their antecedents in Egyptian beliefs.

Again, there are other, far more qualified writers out there who can explain this much better than I can. And yes, I can appreciate that you can read hieroglyphs, and I'm not dismissing what you *do* understand.

Damon