Originally posted by Parta
Originally posted by Hanslune
Show evidence of the Greeks reading that book by name, please
show evidence that the greeks read zoroaster? are you for real? what does wiki on zoroaster say? greeks plagiaring him? if they are in general then its logical to me that yima would not be exempt. its the foundation story after all. its my opinion. yours will always be the opposite but so what. wasting time.
Originally posted by Hanslune
yes it is stunning that you wrote that, now are you going to explain it or shall we just cast it away?
and who are you again? demanding what of me? you really mean you've never heard of the hidden circles of ra? and enkis bolts? really? harte? thought you were all experts.
Sorry, I've been offline for a few days.
The flood in an underworld lake of fire is a flood in an underworld lake of fire, not the sinking of some continent or archipelago. We've talked about this before.
Will you now list other stories that involve floods and claim they are Atlantis?
Regarding the Greeks and Zoroaster,:
Almost all Zoroastrian pseudepigrapha is now lost, and of the attested texts—with only one exception—only fragments have survived. Pliny's 2nd or 3rd century attribution of "two million lines" to Zoroaster suggest that (even if exaggeration and duplicates are taken into consideration) a formidable pseudepigraphic corpus once existed at the Library of Alexandria. This corpus can safely be assumed to be pseudepigrapha because no one before Pliny refers to literature by "Zoroaster," and on the authority of the 2nd century Galen of Pergamon and from a 6th century commentator on Aristotle it is known that the acquisition policies of well-endowed royal libraries created a market for fabricating manuscripts of famous and ancient authors.
No one before Pliny mentions him.
As far as Plato plagiarizing him, since it was brought up, here's what wiki says:
Among the named works attributed to "Zoroaster" is a treatise On Nature (Peri physeos), which appears to have originally constituted four volumes (i.e. papyrus rolls). The framework is a retelling of Plato's Myth of Er, with Zoroaster taking the place of the original hero. While Porphyry imagined Pythagoras listening to Zoroaster's discourse, On Nature has the sun in middle position, which was how it was understood in the 3rd century. In contrast, Plato's 4th century BCE version had the sun in second place above the moon. Ironically, Colotes accused Plato of plagiarizing Zoroaster, and Heraclides Ponticus wrote a text titled Zoroaster based on (what the author considered) "Zoroastrian" philosophy in order to express his disagreement with Plato on natural philosophy.
Source for both excerpts: Wiki Page
Note the use of the word "ironically."
That word is used because it seems Plato's work actually predated the Zoroastrian "On Nature" that Colotes later accused Plato of plagiarizing.
Sorry, nothing there to support your view.
You might know of better information, though. If so, please link me to it.