Atlantis

[Kentucky Kache]

But you have to look at the entire record (Bible). There had not been, nor has
there been since, a distruction of the magnitude of Noah's flood, when God
wiped mankind from the face of the earth, except for eight people.

Actually, we ARE given the ages of the Patriarchs, at least the ones BEFORE
the flood. Without looking it up I believe it adds up to 1646 years. My belief
is that the 1646 years would be counted from the time of Adam's fall from
grace. Before then, time was not counted, as sin had not yet entered.
When sin entered, it brought death, which was a time limit, or in other
words, time began. So, from there you can start by looking at how long
Adam lived, and then adding each one, stopping at the age of Noah when
the flood occurred. These dates were given to us for a reason. You can do
the same thing AFTER the flood and arrive at the correct dates for the tower
of Babel, etc.

I know that this is contradictory to what scientists say, but I also know that
scientists don't understand all the things they are looking at. Again, look at
the entire record. Jesus said that the truth is hid to such people.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

HOLA mi amigo Cache Crazy,

I am agreement with you that science does not completely understand everything, certainly not to the level that some like to claim. However on the other hand, I would point out that our understanding of the Bible is also limited and changing (hopefully IMPROVING) over time. For instance, we have people who take the description in Genesis of creation literally, despite those references which explain that when it says "day" it does not mean literally a day but a span of time; after all the first "day" had no Earth revolving to measure out 24 hours; beside this, the order explained in Genesis of creation also FITS with what science says about how everything came to be!

You have probably seen me post this before, but there is no real difficulty between science and God. This is because the laws of science are the laws of nature, and the laws of nature are the laws of God. In ancient Hebrew, the word for "nature" is the same word as for "God". So when we find what seem to be controversies between what the Bible says and what science is telling us, it is very possible that we are simply not understanding what the Bible is really saying.

I am not saying that you have it wrong - only that it is possible that there could be another answer, which will fit with both science and the Bible.

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

 

[Kentucky Kache]

So why did he say that these things are hid from the wise?

The laws of nature are the laws of God, I agree. God created nature.
It's when man comes along and starts thinking he knows better than
what the Bible says, that we end up in a mess like we're in today.
Eat of this tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil...your eyes will be
opened, and you will be as gods. That's what Eve listened to, and that's
what we're listening to today. There was also the tree of life, which was
the opposite of the tree of knowledge. You can't know God by scientific
means. It's hid from the wise and REVEALED to babes.

I also agree with you on one day being a thousand years. Some things in
the Bible are given that way, but when he says someone lived a certain
amount of years, then I have to believe it means it just that way.

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA mi amigo Cache Crazy (and everyone),

This post does stray off-topic but only to attempt to justify a theory, so I must beg your indulgence.

Cache Crazy wrote:

So why did he say that these things are hid from the wise?

The laws of nature are the laws of God, I agree. God created nature.
It's when man comes along and starts thinking he knows better than
what the Bible says, that we end up in a mess like we're in today.
Eat of this tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil...your eyes will be
opened, and you will be as gods. That's what Eve listened to, and that's
what we're listening to today. There was also the tree of life, which was
the opposite of the tree of knowledge. You can't know God by scientific
means. It's hid from the wise and REVEALED to babes.

I also agree with you on one day being a thousand years. Some things in
the Bible are given that way, but when he says someone lived a certain
amount of years, then I have to believe it means it just that way.

Well to your first question, I am not really qualified to answer that. However, remember what it says in Corinthians 13:11, also Matthew 7:7, Matthew 10:26, Luke 12:2, Exodus 28:3, 31:3, 31:6, and several more etc Ephesians 5:8, Isaiah 54:13, many references in the Bible extol the virtues of wisdom; just look at Solomon for one example, he asked God for wisdom and this pleased God greatly so he granted not only wisdom but immense wealth, honor, peace etc. We are not living in Eden today, having the luxury of choice of whether to remain as innocent as wild animals or to partake of wisdom – that choice was taken many thousands of years ago by Adam and Eve. We live in the “cursed Earth”, cursed by God for our ancestors’ transgressions. Wisdom is not evil, at least that is not the way the Bible seems to describe it.

I also must respectfully disagree that you cannot know God by scientific means. For instance, there is a wealth of archaeological evidence that confirms the Bible, from Pontius Pilate to Sodom and Gomorrah. Science has even shown that there is a “scientific” Adam and a “scientific” Eve, tracing our DNA back to a single male ancestor and a single female, which agrees with what Genesis tells us. Does it weaken anyone’s religious belief that we DO have scientific evidence that supports the Bible? Even Creation, which seems to stir up such heated arguments, well what else is the scientific “Big Bang” theory but the instant of the creation of the Universe? “"I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." (G. Thomas, 77)
At least I don’t see any REAL conflict between science and the Bible. I will add a single word to your statement, which I can easily agree with,
You cannot know God by scientific means - ALONE.


As for the ages of the patriarchs, there is a reason why they are listed first in Genesis 10 WITHOUT any mention of how many years they lived, then in Genesis 11 we are given the years they lived, and when children were born. Nowhere in the Bible does it literally say the number of years from the Flood to the birth of Christ – we have been calculating to arrive at a date, using those ages of the patriarchs and assuming this MUST be the number of years to the flood. I can point to several examples of how the “current” understanding of the Bible was shown to be simply mistaken by science, for instance the church insisted for centuries that the Earth is flat, pointing to passages in scripture that mention the “four corners” of the world, etc (the great Saint Augustine became the authority on this view) yet after the world was proven to be a sphere and not flat, a careful review of scripture shows that the Bible does say that the world is round. (Flat Earth, Isaiah 11:12, Ezekiel 7:2 etc round Earth Isaiah 40:22 and an interesting supporting passage in Job 26:7, saying that Earth floats in space on nothing, a fact LONG disbelieved until proven by science) This is just one example, our understanding in both science and the Bible changes over time and (hopefully) improving as we go along.

To try to tie this back in to our subject matter, I do suspect that the great flood of Noah (Gilgamesh, Deukalion etc) is the same event described by Plato for Atlantis. The reference to great wealth and tendencies to violence in Plato describing the Atlantians or Titans does seem to parallel the description of humanity in Genesis leading up to the Flood.

My apologies for yet another long-winded post, and for venturing into scripture outside of the religion forum. Good luck and good hunting to you Cache Crazy and everyone, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
your friend,
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

I believe that the Biblical flood, covered the world. Thus we have the stories from every corner. In Plato's account, only Atlantis was destroyed.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA mi amigo Joe,

Genesis says that sea levels rose some fifteen cubits, quote:

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail

(Genesis 7:20, KJV)
in a literal translation it reads, "fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty" (same passage, Young's Literal translation) which according to Glover's ref (biblical cubit = 21.8 inches) equates to around 327 inches or 27.25 feet. This much rise is in keeping with what science indicates for the sudden and rapid rise of global sea levels, in fact it is quite conservative. We have to keep in mind that the description in Genesis is as witnessed by Noah and his party, living in the region of Ur in Mesopotamia, so a rise in sea levels of that much (in so short a time) would likely cover all the high hills around the once-great city. Apocryphal sources say that "a fourth part" of the Earth was in fact flooded, which science also supports - about one fourth of the world's land area was lost to flooding after the last Ice Age. It is not incorrect when Genesis says that the flooding was world-wide, for such massive sea rises did cause global flooding. (Check out the massive glacial meltwater surges, such as Glacial Lake Missoula which released nearly 500 cubic MILES of freshwater into the sea in one giant surge, or even more massive glacial meltwater surges into the Atlantic - here is an extract from an article on this subject, quote

Evidence shows that the on slaught of Ice Age floods was not so localized:


Hills point to catastrophic Ice Age floods

Fields of low hills that cover parts of inland Canada and the northern United States may seem quite distant from the watery world of Atlantis. Yet a Canadian geologist proposes these hills formed from huge Ice Age floods that sharply raised global sea levels and could have spawned myths of a swamped continent.

"There's nothing in recorded history that matches the size of these floods," says John Shaw of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, who has estimated the extent of the floods from the size of the ridges.

Called drumlins--a word derived from Old Irish -- these hills appear in concentrated fields in North America, Scandinavia, Britain and other areas once covered by ice. When seen from above, the aligned knolls sometimes look like a basket of eggs lying on their sides and pointing in the same direction. Some drumlins are made of sediments deposited onto bedrock; others are ridges carved out of the rock.

Most geologists believe drumlins developed gradually from the grinding action of heavy ice sheets as they moved over the land. But in the last several years, Shaw and others have proposed the controversial idea that floods of water flowing beneath the ice created many of the North American drumlins and possibly others around the world. They base this hypothesis on the shapes drumlins share with other land forms sculpted by meltwater.
<snip>
According to Shaw, heat from the Earth formed huge lakes of meltwater that remained trapped beneath the North American ice sheet. As the sheet began to retreat near the end of the glacial age, the water broke through and flowed in torrents down to the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean. While flowing under the ice cap, water would have surged in vast, turbulent sheets that sculpted and scoured drumlins. Each flood lasted until the weight of the ice cap once again shut off the outlet of the covered lake, Shaw says.

Through simple calculations described in the September GEOLOGY, Shaw estimates that 84,000 cubic kilometers of water must have discharged during the creation of one large drumlin field in northern Saskatchewan. Upon reaching the ocean, this flood would have raised global sea levels by 23 centimeters during a few days or weeks, he says.

In some ways, Shaw's hypothesis echoes ideas raised 14 years ago by a group of oceanographers who studied the ancient remains of one-celled animals buried under sediment on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. The ratios of oxygen isotopes in these organisms suggested that sometime around 11,500 years ago, a large amount of freshwater entered the gulf, says Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami in Coral Gables. On the basis of the isotope studies, Emiliani and his colleagues theorized that a sudden influx of meltwater from the ice sheet could have rapidly raised sea levels, sparking myths of a great deluge.

(from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n14_v136/ai_8002743 )

Anyway I respectfully disagree that we must interpret the flood described in Genesis to mean a mass of water that literally covers the tops of every high mountain on Earth, for which we do not have scientific evidence. Flooding can destroy vast areas without covering all the land with a layer of water like a giant sea.

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

 

[Oroblanco]

WHOOPS forgot to add - Plato did say that the Athenians also suffered the loss of the whole of their military due to the cataclysm, so even though he does not say specifically where the Athenians were at that moment, he did say that they were defending against the Atlantian aggressors, which at least suggests that they were in Greece. (check Timaeus, from "O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children..." destruction was implied as universal, and survivors in each case, with Egypt alone escaping the worst of it.)
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

So we must discard the story that the earth was flooded after forty days and forty nights of rain? How high do you believe the oceans rose at the end of the last ice age? Any idea how long it took to become the catastrophe described in the destruction of Atlantis?

I must disagree with you on the usefulness of the step pyramids as defense structures. Those working in the walled off fields, could retreat to the top of the pyramids if attacked. It would be a fine defensive position. Those coming over the rock wall that can be seen enclosing the fields would be the ones in danger. Who knows what was on top of those pyramids. No need for structures higher that a foot. I can see where no structure would be required at all. A lot depends on the sophistication of the weaponry. Anyone trying to come up from below would be setting ducks.

The defensive position would be for those working the fields, caught some distance from their homes. Weapons could be stored there, along with water and food. It is unlikely that any kind of siege would take place. The balance of their forces coming from the village/whatever would be a strong consideration for the enemy.

There are many possibilities for those pyramids. Right now, it's all speculation.

I have read where the American pyramids were used as defensive structures, as well as burial sites and places of worship. While the construction may not be exactly the same, neither is the terrain and building materials ready at hand. "Necessity is the mother of invention". The people used what they had plenty of.

The step pyramids design has been used in many places for a defensive stronghold. One such place was Xochicalco, (Place Of Flowers). I have read that in the Battle of Cholula the Spaniards found the Aztecs defending themselves from a step pyramid. In these cases, that defense was not successful, but I don't believe the participants were anywhere near equal in numbers, weaponry or strategy.

I consider you the authority here, and I am only tossing out a few small pieces of wood for the fire.

Take care,

Joe

 

[jeff of pa]

This is starting to sound Too much like Church Sirvice here.

Get back to Atlantis

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,

Joe - no we don't have to discard the idea, just that I personally am convinced the wording has led to confusion and misunderstanding over the centuries. World-wide flooding YES - but not necessarily literally covering the tops of the highest mountains like Everest, which would mean 29,029 FT plus that 27.25 feet, an amount of water which cannot be found on Earth even counting all the water in the polar ice caps plus all the water (estimated of course not measured) in the ground aquifers. There is an alternate theory that the mountains were simply not high mountains prior to the flood, and that they all lifted AFTER the flood, - along with the continents separating at that time as well; a passage does seem to imply this - (...the name of one [was] Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; <Gen 10:25>) so... not as large a mass of water would have been necessary. Unfortunately most geologists take issue with this and insist that the ages of the mountains of the world are in the millions of years, not thousands. To further support the idea of world-wide flooding that did not mean literally covering every speck of land with water, there is within the bible this statement - "Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time," (Joshua 24:2) which does read like they lived in a place that was "beyond" the flood geographically rather than living in a time prior to it.

How much the sea levels rose is a matter still debated by the experts, I mentioned one estimate which was some 100 feet in the course of a single year, which there are some bits of evidence to support, but I think the biblical 15 cubits/27 feet is a very plausible and realistic figure. A sudden rise of this amount, worldwide, would cause massive loss of life and property even in our own time, if coupled with world-wide flooding (heavy rains, ice-dams releasing vast amounts of meltwater from any one of several such giant ice-lakes, perhaps even at the same time) and we know that ancient people did like to live by the seas for various reasons.

To further complicate the matter, in the same time period there were a number of large to massive earth subsidences; one mentioned earlier (the Canary islands) but others located in various places around the planet. If I were to try to connect the dots, I would say that Earth had a quite sudden shift in climate - with melting glaciers creating vast clouds, which when meeting cooler air or warmer, leading to heavy rains. Heavy rains might cause even faster ice-melt, perhaps weakening ice dams such as the St Lawrence and Snake River valley (among several, again) which could lead to their failure and a massive surge of cold fresh water into the seas - this could trigger earthquakes from the rebounding crust where ice had melted, or from the increased pressure on the plates under the sea due to the huge increase in water; the earthquakes in turn cause subsidences of such places where volcanic islands have overhangs like the aforementioned Canary Islands, the Hawaiian Islands, even Bermuda island. Even ONE such subsidence (as has happened in the Canaries) can cause what they term as "mega-tsunamis" - a wall of water so huge it beggars the imagination. And yes I do suspect that this list of events is probably about what happened, 11,500 years ago (or so, can't get real specific.)

Referring to the Aztec instance of using a pyramid as a defensive structure (rather disastrously, as stepped pyramids have little defensive protection for anyone standing on them) is a bit of a quandary - for it is on the other side of the Atlantic from the Canary islands. Are we to imply that Aztecs or Mayans built the Canary island pyramids? Or that they were in contact with the Guanches and passed the idea of a pyramid for defense to them? I do agree with you that the 'jury is out' as to what the real purpose was, or for the matter when they were built.

Jeff - yes and sorry for dragging biblical matter into such a thread, but honestly it is solely for the purpose of relating to (and comparing) the story of the sinking of Atlantis, which has some interesting parallels. No proselytizing or preaching from me amigo, you have my word. The bible is an ancient text with a fairly good history in it, and that is how I think we are using it in this case. We could as well use the Epic of Gilgamesh to compare, which is pretty much the same story we find in Genesis, and if you prefer I will use that ancient text instead of the bible.

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

 

[gord]

Roy,

So we must discard the story that the earth was flooded after forty days and forty nights of rain?  How high do you believe the oceans rose at the end of the last ice age?  Any idea how long it took to become the catastrophe described in the destruction of Atlantis?

Actually, ancient shorelines have been identified at depths of up to 150 metres in a number of locations.
Gord

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Right on gord.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Brett2259]

Herakles is generally depicted in ancient times like this:

He is shown wearing a lion skin (the Nemean lion) and carrying a wooden club. This is very much the type of attire and weaponry used circa 9600 BC. He is not depicted wearing metal armor or carrying swords, as these had not been invented in his time.

Thanks for the information on what my coin avatar is. I found it many years ago and not sure what is was.

 

[Brett2259]

The actual coin is what I found that is my avatar...not finding my "coin avatar" many years ago. Preventing smart a** comments here.

 

[Salvor6]

Atlantis is a "myth" that has the advantage of not being able to investigate. Answer this: where did the people of Atlantis come from?

This is another example of bad archaeology. Read this: http://www.badarchaeology.net/forgotten/sunken.php

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good Morning my good friend Scuba: You posted -->

"where did the people of Atlantis come from"?
~~~~~~~~~~~
I might counter that with "where did the ancient people that built the Sphinx, or inhabited some of the ancient cites of India as mentioned in the Mahabharata come from?

Also we are NOT talking about a continent, but a giant Caldera.

What we know is infinitesimal compared to what we don't know.

Now, since you have the lat & long, do your part, and dive on it !

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[cactusjumper]

Scuba,

"Atlantis is a "myth" that has the advantage of not being able to investigate. Answer this: where did the people of Atlantis come from?"

Many of the ancient myths were based on actual people, places and events. Atlantis may be such a case. The story, as told by Plato, may be fiction based on factual events.

In answer to your question, it seems a good bet that the story and people originated on the island of Crete.

Take care,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Oroblanco]

Greetings amigos,

Scubasalvor wrote:

Atlantis is a "myth" that has the advantage of not being able to investigate. Answer this: where did the people of Atlantis come from?

First gracias to my friends Cactusjumper and Real de Tayopa, you have answered this fairly well. I would respectfully disagree that we are not able to investigate Atlantis, the traces of it exist and can be found and examined. (I point to some of the otherwise inexplicable "wheel ruts" of the Maltese islands and elsewhere, the submerged settlements of the Mediterranean and around the British isles, etc and to "circumstantial" evidence such as agricultural products, DNA and linguistic ties, coincidental myths and so forth.) As for the question, where did the people of Atlantis come from - in a general way they came "out of Africa" like all humans, and specifically there are hints that the Atlantians/Titans came originally from Africa before colonizing their islands. Remember the "Atlas" mountains, corresponding with Atlas the Titan for whom the Atlantian islands are named (and the ocean) and it is in Africa where Herakles wrestles the Titan Antaeus. In support of the African origin idea we know that Ice-age Sahara was a lush green pastureland dotted with lakes and occupied by cattle herding peoples.

The theory of the Minoans being the "real" Atlantians is supported by a number of historians, PBS had an interesting bit on it, including online article: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/sinking-atlantis/the-fall-of-the-minoans
Among the points in favor of the Minoans as Atlantis, they were an island empire, had a powerful navy, had influence on the Greeks, they had advanced plumbing, worshipped bulls or at least had some kinds of bull-fighting ceremonies, and they were struck by a devastating natural disaster (the volcanic eruption of Thera and resulting tsunamis) which ultimately led to their downfall.

I am in agreement with Cactusjumper that most myths can be traced to actual events which became allegorized over time into the myths.
Oroblanco

 

[Brett2259]

Finally the Atlantis discussion has stopped. It does.not.exist.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

One can dream, tho... can't they? Where there is smoke, there is fire...