has montezumas tomb been found ...?

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Good afternoon my bestest buddy Lamar: you posted -->

Phobias are the common mental disorders found in humans, and by classification, a human who does not fear something is a very rare specimen
~~~~~~~~~~

You are correct, I hate w o r k .sigh. However, regarding your DNA theory being responsible, I will take issue. Most phobias are learned or have causitive factors. This can readily be shown in cases of identical twin having different reactions, especially those that were raised in different households Also brothers and sisters in the same household have different reactions to different stimuli.

Regarding the grand canyon story, perhaps, perhaps, but they did have a set of morals even then, no editor would allow such a thing to be printed unless it had a basis. Does anyone have any data on that section of the Grand canyon? Is it out of bounds today

Just curious

Don Jose de La Mancha?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear Real de Tayopa;
Once again, my friend, in the case of identical twins having vastly different reactions to different stimulii is normal AND expected and it would be an extremely rare set of twins that shared identical thought patterns. In other words, the DNA strand in an individual will NOT state that this person will be afraid of roaches and that person will be afraid of mice, rather, the DNA strand states conclusively that both people will in fact fear SOMETHING. This is the similiarity portion, and that each one will fear something different is the individuality portion of it.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[whitt459]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Lamar! was just wondering if your eyes are brown? whitt459 p.s. was thinking from reading your long drawn out post that thev must be

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

HI lamar: Fear is a survival technique. it is learned. A baby has no fear as such, but after an unpleasant experience, develops it A classic example is in the Galapagos Isl, or the Antarctic regions.the animals haven't learned to fear humans , yet.

I agree in the simple one celled animals where there is no brain as such, the DNA survival factor could useful for the species survival..

In premed i was asked to explain how an amoeba envelops it's food particle or prey. I answered that perhaps either a chemical radiation or a frequency transmission from the particle, or other animal, could weaken the cell wall of the amoebae on the particle side, so causing it to flow in that direction and eventually envelop the particle or prey. a simple reaction, obviously DNA caused

A phobia is a complex fear reaction which develops into an irrationality. Many times triggered by a single incident, or can even be taught.

My fear of W O R K is a splendid example he he he .

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Greetings,

Lamar wrote:

If we had pyramids in Egypt and pyramids in Peru, then one could ponder the plausibility that perhaps there may have been possible interaction between the two groups, however pyramids exist virtually EVERYWHERE, therefore we can positively conclude that humans could not have travelled the width and breadth of the entire planet, And that they could do this without leaving behind the tiniest morsel of evidence is simply absurd.

Lamar I give up, you are apparently not open to reason, so any further attempt to show you that the idea of utter isolation between the peoples of antiquity is nonsense is a waste of both of our time and the space here in T-net. I hope you won't be offended if I respectfully disagree with your statements, including that pyramids are found "EVERYWHERE" (how many are in the Antarctic? Canada? Greenland? Iceland? Siberia? etc) as well as your contentions about pyramids being a sort of "natural" thing for humans to do. There is a considerable body of evidence to prove that people were making contacts across the oceans in antiquity, should you care enough to look.

Lamar also wrote:

We also know that dragons did not exist, at least for the last 20 million years, because there simply exists no evidence linking the myth to the species, yet we know that the myths are in place because of the documented proof that early man has left behind.

Again, see reply above, it is readily apparent that you are laser-focused on the completely fictionalized dragons of fantasy and just ignore the fact that "dragons" are readily traceable to crocodiles - we start with real animals, pass the information describing them through slightly garbled translations in ancient times = impossible animals like dragons and "camel leopards" (Giraffes). I would suggest that you try reading the bible and everywhere you see the word "dragon" simply substitute the word "crocodile" and see how marvelous it is when the truth shines through, or try it with "rhino" (referring to the one-horned Asian variety) wherever it says "unicorn" but I rather doubt you would take the time so I will concede that dragons, that is referring to the mythical, fire-breathing, flying dragons that gathered treasures and abducted beautiful damsels, did not exist. Real dragons however are a different case and I must respectfully disagree and point out the truth, but won't trouble you any further on this point.

Good luck and good hunting to you Lamar and everyone reading this, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
your friend,
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear Oroblanco;
When I stated that pyramids are to be found virtually everywhere, perhaps I should have said "Pyramids are to be found everywhere that mankind has been, and built whenever that particular society had reached a particular stage in their individual development cycle."

And when we refer to the original Bibical texts, we find the word "dragon" to be "δράκοντοϛ drakontos" in classical Greek. This is where the modern word "dragon" is derived. The word "crocodile is "κροκόδīλος" in classical Greek and we can readily see that the words for "dragon" and "crocodile" are vastly different in Greek. Also, in the classical Greek language, the word for crocodile existed side by side with the word dragon, therefore we can conclude that the Biblical writers were referring to two distinctly different creatures.

Also, in Latin the word for "dragon" is "extractum" and the word for "crocodile" is "crocodilus", therefore we may conclude that the authors did not commit an error during translation, my friend.

And so, in comparing the word dragon to crocodile in both classical Greek and classical Latin, we now find that the truth does not shine through quite as brightly as it did yesterday, now does it?
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[desertmoons]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Just a thought on dragons - i recently read of a pattern of thunderbird shaped rock piles out east. The common denominator was they were placed by lightning struck trees.


Perhaps dragons were the explanation for meteor showers or other heavenly events of fire death and destruction in the early days. The shape of it came later.

 

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear oroblanco;
Even your steadfast refusal to consider the validity of my theory has been pre-determined, based on your own particular DNA coding. In other words, upon reading about my theory, you had but a certain number of pre-determined responses available to you, and you randomly chose the one which you did. That you chose one PARTICULAR response over another is immaterial to the discussion and your wholehearted agreement to my theory would have been just as important as the response you chose, my friend.

Please bear in mind that chaos theory tells is that unpredictably occurs in predictable events and that predictability occurs in unpredictable events. Simply because you feel that you pondered many different factors before making your decision makes not the slightest bit of difference, my friend. Your brain randomly chose to reject my proposal, based on a pre-determined set of factors that are embedded in your DNA strand. Your refusal to accept my theory, even though the theory seems to hold true at all test points, is totally random and puts not the slightest bit of weight to the argument.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

good morning Lamar my friend: You posted -->

Your brain randomly chose to reject my proposal, based on a pre-determined set of factors that are embedded in your DNA strand. Your refusal to accept my theory, even though the theory seems to hold true at all test points, is totally random and puts not the slightest bit of weight to the argument
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

HMM, and the reciprocal holds true also no? Of course, based upon this theory, I am against that new radical theory put forth in the year 2,000,000 AD since my DNA anticipated it. Hmmm.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

HI desert moon luv: Dragons still exist. Look up Komodo Dragons.

Komodo dragons are formidable predators, since even one bite can be lethal. The bacteria that live in the dragon's saliva are so virulent that wounds often will not heal. Even if the victim gets away, it usually dies from infection in a few days. The dragon's reputation as a human eater is well deserved; it does not seem to fear humans and many attacks and deaths have been reported.

Don Jose de a Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

One last thing about the Punic Coin Map:

Anyone who takes Mark McMenamin's photo of the coin and compares it to the drawing,
will have no trouble seeing that McMenamin took some liberties with his "map". I would say that a stretch of the imagination would be an understatement.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Greetings.,

Lamar wrote:

And when we refer to the original Bibical texts, we find the word "dragon" to be "δράκοντοϛ drakontos" in classical Greek. This is where the modern word "dragon" is derived. The word "crocodile is "κροκόδīλος" in classical Greek and we can readily see that the words for "dragon" and "crocodile" are vastly different in Greek. Also, in the classical Greek language, the word for crocodile existed side by side with the word dragon, therefore we can conclude that the Biblical writers were referring to two distinctly different creatures.

Also, in Latin the word for "dragon" is "extractum" and the word for "crocodile" is "crocodilus", therefore we may conclude that the authors did not commit an error during translation, my friend.

And so, in comparing the word dragon to crocodile in both classical Greek and classical Latin, we now find that the truth does not shine through quite as brightly as it did yesterday, now does it?

Thank you for proving my point, that it was a case of garbled translations in ancient times that left us with "dragons". For yes the Greek and Latin words for dragon are different from their word for dragon, so when the Septuagint was translated into Greek from the original Hebrew for for pharaoh Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285–246 BC, the translators found the Hebrew word "dragon" without realizing that their "dragon" was in fact a crocodile, they simply put in their own word for dragon. They were doing their best to get a literal translation and retain the intended meanings so I do not hold them at fault, it is us modern folks who fail to see that the terms dragon, behemoth, unicorn, leviathan etc are actually references to real animals that the Hebrews were not so familiar with but had SOME knowledge of. So we find that the truth shines even brighter than yesterday, since you pointed out the language difference barriers involved in translating the bible, illustrating directly where these "mythical" animals probably could have been correctly idenftified and the name substituted in the texts, but this was not done in view of Ptolemy's desire for as close to a literal translation as possible. Over the centuries, these names of animals becoming "myth" has even led some people to turn away from this particular religion, on the basis of - if it is supposed to be the Word of God, then why should we accept it when it has these obviously MYTHICAL creatures in it? For if that is pure fiction, then the book cannot be a book of truth since it has these fictional creatures, etc. (I am not one of these persons but am sure you have run into folks who use that line of reasoning to reject the Bible.)

Lamar also wrote:

Dear oroblanco;
Even your steadfast refusal to consider the validity of my theory has been pre-determined, based on your own particular DNA coding. In other words, upon reading about my theory, you had but a certain number of pre-determined responses available to you, and you randomly chose the one which you did. That you chose one PARTICULAR response over another is immaterial to the discussion and your wholehearted agreement to my theory would have been just as important as the response you chose, my friend.

Please bear in mind that chaos theory tells is that unpredictably occurs in predictable events and that predictability occurs in unpredictable events. Simply because you feel that you pondered many different factors before making your decision makes not the slightest bit of difference, my friend. Your brain randomly chose to reject my proposal, based on a pre-determined set of factors that are embedded in your DNA strand. Your refusal to accept my theory, even though the theory seems to hold true at all test points, is totally random and puts not the slightest bit of weight to the argument.
Your friend;
LAMAR

Perhaps you misunderstood what I posted, for I did not refuse to consider your theory nor completely reject it out of hand. It is quite obviously right IN PART, that part about being genetically inclined towards certain tendencies, and some scientists hold that "unreasonable" fears such as phobia of spiders, ladders, heights, water, snakes, cats, etc are more likely a genetically-inherent trait rather than something learned. However to carry this idea of genetic inheritance of very wide ranges of human traits, especially social attributes, even some physical attributes is not warranted by the evidence. Studies done by several universities have shown that environment and experiences have far more influence on how a person turns out than their genetic traits. It is an interesting theory, in my opinion worthy of publishing in a peer-reviewed publication. You might stir up a storm of controversy amongst academia, but they enjoy it and the end result usually furthers science, whether a new idea is proven or disproven.

Don Jose', the Man of La Mancha wrote:

HI desert moon luv: Dragons still exist. Look up Komodo Dragons.

Komodo dragons are formidable predators, since even one bite can be lethal. The bacteria that live in the dragon's saliva are so virulent that wounds often will not heal. Even if the victim gets away, it usually dies from infection in a few days. The dragon's reputation as a human eater is well deserved; it does not seem to fear humans and many attacks and deaths have been reported

This is the point I was trying to show to our amigo Lamar, that dragons are not mythical at all but real animals, I point to crocodiles in the case of the ancient Hebrews, but for east Asia the Komodo dragons are more likely the real "dragons" of their "mythology". Muchas gracias for pointing out yet another real dragon amigo, that is still very much alive and kicking. In fact the horrific toxic brew of infectious bacteria that thrive in the saliva of Komodo dragons, which results in terrible infections for any victim bitten, might be the origin of the story of dragons "breathing fire" for the infected bite would burn like heck for the victim, turning red quickly and swelling, exhibiting wound characteristics that might be mistaken for burns from some kind of flame or scalding.

Cactusjumper wrote:

One last thing about the Punic Coin Map:

Anyone who takes Mark McMenamin's photo of the coin and compares it to the drawing,
will have no trouble seeing that McMenamin took some liberties with his "map". I would say that a stretch of the imagination would be an understatement.

Joe Ribaudo

Just my opinion but I have not made a decision whether those strange marks found by McMenamin are a map, a blundered inscription in the exergue, or (as the ancient coin collectors group decided) simply the result of die inclusions. In each case there are problems, if a map it is far from perfect (however how accurate could it be in such a small space) and considering how Punic authorities reacted about geographic and navigational secrets it would not make sense (which might explain why the "map" was discontinued after only a few examples got into circulation, perhaps the engraver was told to STOP THAT or lose his hands etc) if it was a blundered inscription it is unique - we have examples of blundered inscriptions and none resemble this at all. If it is simply the result of die inclusions, the result should be incuse, not raised relief, as debris on the dies leaves small dents in the coin blank when it is struck. Many examples of die inclusions exist and a total of NONE of them have raised relief, all are incuse where the debris was on the die. (This happens with modern coins as well.) So I would say that I think it is more likely a map than a blundered inscription or die inclusion, especially when considered in conjunction with the other evidence of Punic visitors reaching the Americas and returning. I only mentioned it as a part of the whole, another example of the growing stack of evidence for contact in ancient times, it is not the main evidence of ancient contact by any measure and if proven absolutely to be just a blundered inscription or other explanation, it would have very little effect on the total amount of evidence. I might have included in the list the more mysterious Piri Reis maps, which show the correct coastline of part of Antarctica and America, (that is Antarctica without any ice!) - and point out that written on those maps the explanation of how they were drawn states that they were drawn from a set of 20 maps, including eight which were of very ancient Greek maps dating to the time of Alexander the great. I am pretty sure that most folks will agree that the Piri Reis maps ARE maps.

<Illustration comparing South America to the Piri Reis map>

Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear Oroblanco;
Why do you seem to have such a difficult time grasping the validity of my proposed theory, my obstinate colleague? It would seem to me that a person who puts faith in the existence of Jesuit treasure troves and mines with names like Tayopa should have no problem embracing the tenants of my new theory, yet your steadfast refusal to even recognize the valid points which I've laid out have thus far distresses me. To quote Darth Vader "I find your lack of faith disturbing."

That you have used an image of a map which was drawn in 1513 holds no weight either. The Americas had already been discovered by this time and there were already several accurate maps showing the coastline of the Americas. To quote the references which the famous Turkish admiral Piri Reis used, he himself stated that the map he drew was "based on about twenty charts and mappae mundi. According to Piri these maps included eight Ptolemaic maps, an Arabic map of India, four newly drawn Portuguese maps of their recent discoveries, and a map by Christopher Columbus of the western lands.

My friend, we know for a FACT that Antartica has been completely covered by ice for the last 20 million years at least. We can also look at the geographical representations and actual seismic surveys of the true landmass of Antartica and compare these findings with the Piri Reis map and conclude that the landmass which was drawn by Piri Reis is so wildly inaccurate that it means nothing except as a point of minor curiousity.

And now, to continue onwards, we find that the Hebrew word for DRAGON is דְרָקוֹן and the Hebrew word for CROCODILE is תִמסָח. As is plainly seen in the above examples, there exists NO SIMILIARITY between the two words in Hebrew, therefore they could NOT have been unintentionally mistranslated.

To sum up, my theory is the ONLY theory which explains the similiarites between ancient societies completely and without failure at any point thus far discovered, my as yet unconvinced friend. All other theories do not seem to hold up under close questioning, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Good morning my friend Lamar: Frankly, I am a bit amused by your post.to ORO -->

:"why do you seem to have such a difficult time grasping the validity of my proposed theory", ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Explain to me in simple words why YOU have such a hard time understanding "his" theory, which to a bystander, appears to be far more logical?
*****************************************************************************************
You also posted -->

"It would seem to me that a person who puts faith in the existence of Jesuit treasure troves and mines with names like Tayopa should have no problem embracing the tenants of my new theory,"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I personally have Tayopa titled, and can prove that it IS Tayopa, yet you won't accept it, If you can't accept a fact, why are you condemning him for a supposed fault in not accepting your extremely nebulous theory, which is NOT backed up by any physical data.??
****************************************************************************************
Regarding the Piri maps. I was fortunate in meeting one of the world's experts on them while he was on vacation here. He flatly states that many of the maps that Piri used were far older than is normally supposed.

He also stated that in his belief, that Columbus was inspired to search for the Indies by a previous map that he had somehow acquired. This is why he was so adamant in his cruise - he knew that since many of the other points on the map were relatively accurate, the Indies had to be there.

He also stated, the Antarctic perspective was originally considered incorrect, that is, until we ventured into space. At that time the Piri maps were confirmed as being correct, and in conformance with the geophysical findings.. The Antartic is as it would appear from space, approximately 200 miles..

The question is, how did someone receive this information, since supposedly we have only very recently ventured into space??i

Under your theory, it could only be caused by the DNA factor, one which I categorically reject..
***************************************************************************************

Regarding dragons, again I find it a bit amusing, since we still have living dragons, well documented. They could easily have been in the British Isl for St George to gain his fame. Physical remains may still be found somewhere unless all dragons were burned after their death, a common thingie done by superstitious people...

Most legends do have a basis, many times well distorted ,. but still having a basis..

Just recently scientists were excited by receiving a sugar molecule signal from a nearby galaxy. This sugar molecule is critical for the basis of life. They found it by receiving and measuring it's resonant frequency, which is a complex component of it's individual element's frequencies.

This factor is still vigorously denied by many, since it tends to verify the basis of dowsing and claims that an object can be found by directional electronic instruments. Another folk lore or legend coming true.

In this case, DNA probably does have a place.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear Real de Tayopa;
Yep, you are absolutely correct, my friend! I was wrong, please disregard all my above posts.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Good afternoon my friend Lamar: N O P E, I won't, most are very good. . heheheh Let's get to cracking my friend, let's develop your theory..

don Jose de La Manca

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Seasons greetings amigos,

Lamar wrote:

Dear Oroblanco;
Why do you seem to have such a difficult time grasping the validity of my proposed theory, my obstinate colleague? It would seem to me that a person who puts faith in the existence of Jesuit treasure troves and mines with names like Tayopa should have no problem embracing the tenants of my new theory, yet your steadfast refusal to even recognize the valid points which I've laid out have thus far distresses me. To quote Darth Vader "I find your lack of faith disturbing."

I don’t know why you have the impression that I fail to grasp your theory, I think I have a fairly solid understanding of what you propose. I simply disagree with its validity, especially concerning cultural practices. As for having “faith” in Jesuit treasure troves, well my friend when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck…. (lame-duck attempt at humor ) Our friend Real de Tayopa has found one famous example, and we know of others such as more than 2000 small silver bars recovered from Tumacacori (years ago) along with documentary evidence. The Society of Jesus may well deny any ownership of any such treasures and/or mines, and be telling the truth at the same time – as the actual “legal” ownership of such treasures, mines, properties etc could be traced to the Catholic Church. So a Jesuit priest could stand in the entrance of a silver mine, holding stacks of silver bars, and not be lying to say he did not own any such silver or mine. However in common parlance or usage, we refer to them as “Jesuit” treasures, mines etc as the Indios who worked the mines were under the impression that the mines and treasures were actually owned by the padres. This does not “prove” that the Jesuit padres actually owned any of them.

Lamar also wrote:

That you have used an image of a map which was drawn in 1513 holds no weight either. The Americas had already been discovered by this time and there were already several accurate maps showing the coastline of the Americas. To quote the references which the famous Turkish admiral Piri Reis used, he himself stated that the map he drew was "based on about twenty charts and mappae mundi. According to Piri these maps included eight Ptolemaic maps, an Arabic map of India, four newly drawn Portuguese maps of their recent discoveries, and a map by Christopher Columbus of the western lands.

My friend, we know for a FACT that Antartica has been completely covered by ice for the last 20 million years at least. We can also look at the geographical representations and actual seismic surveys of the true landmass of Antartica and compare these findings with the Piri Reis map and conclude that the landmass which was drawn by Piri Reis is so wildly inaccurate that it means nothing except as a point of minor curiousity.

I posted the PIri Reis map for illustration, in reply to our amigo Cactusjumper’s misgivings concerning McMenamin’s “map on a coin” theory. Since our mutual friend Real de Tayopa has already covered this and you have apparently missed Reis’ mention of the Ptolemaic maps (these date to before the time of Christ) there is no need to respond further.

Lamar also wrote:

And now, to continue onwards, we find that the Hebrew word for DRAGON is דְרָקוֹן and the Hebrew word for CROCODILE is תִמסָח. As is plainly seen in the above examples, there exists NO SIMILIARITY between the two words in Hebrew, therefore they could NOT have been unintentionally mistranslated.

Show me a single example of the Hebrew word for crocodile תִמסָח anywhere in the Bible. The Hebrew word for crocodile is likely a modern word, not ancient and thus not available for the authors of the bible. It is not a case of similarity of words or names, it is a case of garbled translation.

Lamar also wrote:

To sum up, my theory is the ONLY theory which explains the similiarites between ancient societies completely and without failure at any point thus far discovered, my as yet unconvinced friend. All other theories do not seem to hold up under close questioning, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

I respectfully disagree my friend, your theory is a very interesting one and certainly worthy of publication, however there are some problems with it as an explanation for why we find pyramid builders scattered across several continents yet pyramids are absent from many places where human cultures flourished. Just my opinion but your theory ought to be further developed, not abandoned simply because some treasure hunters like us find fault.

Good luck and good hunting to you all, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Your friend,
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear oroblanco;
The Hebrew word תִמסָח comes from Meshanic Hebrew. Naturally, I took the liberty of actually researching the words and their respective meanings, along with their historic periods. And yes, the early Israelis knew what crocodiles were my friend. Remember the Pharoh business from the Old Testament?

Also, as an aside, the Septuagint is chockful of historical inaccuracies and even absurd flights of fancy. Taking into account the poetic and creative liberties which the translators incorporated in the translation from the Hebrew Bible into the Septuagint we can therefore assume that the translators wished to describe all manner of mythological creatures, the reason why which has been lost to time.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Seasons greetings Lamar and everyone,

Lamar then you are well aware that Mishnaic Hebrew dates to the 1st to the 3rd or 4th century AD, long AFTER the Septuagint was translated and much longer after the original stories were composed in Hebrew, so the word תִמסָח was NOT available to the scholars working to translate the bible. Thank you for proving my point.

Lamar wrote:

Also, as an aside, the Septuagint is chockful of historical inaccuracies and even absurd flights of fancy. Taking into account the poetic and creative liberties which the translators incorporated in the translation from the Hebrew Bible into the Septuagint we can therefore assume that the translators wished to describe all manner of mythological creatures, the reason why which has been lost to time.

These "absurd flights of fancy" you mention can also be viewed in a quite different light, if one simply looks at such reports as probable cases of mistranslation, misunderstanding, or even poetic exaggeration. There are undeniable statements which are nothing less than poetic license, such as the "four corners of the world" and these are obvious. I respectfully disagree that the translators were deliberately including any mythical creatures, rather these creatures have become "mythical" through misunderstanding. We need only look at other examples of real animals which have been misunderstood - like "hoop snakes" of the Appalachian region, which undoubtedly do not exist yet snakes certainly exist. It is easy to conceive just how "hoop snakes" might have originated, if someone out hunting in the woods found a snake that was in moult, trying to remove the dead skin layer and happened to have its head close to its tail, the witness then reports that he has seen a "hoop snake" - innocently creating a mythical animal from a real animal.

Good luck and good hunting, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
your friend,
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?

Dear oroblanco;
Yes, this is correct, however Mishnaic Hebrew is the same as Masoretic Hebrew, with the principal differences being some nouns and differences in pronounciation. As an aside, the word CROCODILE existed in the earliest known Hebrew texts.

As I understand it, the various names which could possibly have the same meanings are as follows:

çãb=the actual word for the physical animal ie, the crocodile. Oddly enough, this word is found only in the book of Leviticus.
thán=a jackal-like creature or an animal which resides in the ground, ie: a burrow
líweyãthãn= the word for a creature that is used interchangably between a crocodile and a SEA serpent, but not a winged land creature
tánnîm=most likely meaning a crocodile, whale or dolphin, or in some instances a type of badger
sãrãph=a land based serpent, thought to able to fly through the air

In the Hebrew Bible, the crocodile represents the Pharoh and the Armies of Egypt and in a broader sense, all of the enemies of Israel.
Your friend;
LAMAR