Ancient 2500 yr Old Map Shows The Lost City of Atlantis is The Eye of The Sahara

a reply to: Harte

What evidence is that?

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Harte

What evidence is that?

The most obvious i can tink of would be ocean sediment being found in the area. a bore hole drill would let you check for that. Then of course rocks being moved inland might be another clue. And useally you will find evidence in more tha one location for example say hawaii and alaska i was reading an artice how both were effected by a tsunami.

originally posted by: lostbook
a reply to: Harte

What evidence is that?

Oh, for example, this kind.

Or some of this.

Or that.

Or this other thing.

et cetera
et alia
ad infinitum

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

This thread was sidetracked into a debate that has nothing to do with Atlantis. Plato used myths to teach ideas and partly to obscure his beliefs. You may not know this but his mentor Socrates was killed for his beliefs. so by creating myths he could teach lessons without making direct statements that could be used aginst him. For example teaching people the evils of a state. People could learn his lessons see the corelations to the greek state but if he needed to alll he had to say is i was talking about Atlantis and the story I heard. This isnt the only myth he created by the way. He also created the Myth of Er which follows his adventures. I think most people do not realize why he used mythos like Atlantis or the Myth of Er. But it was a safety mechanism to keep from being killed. His defence would be its a story what you take from it is up to you.

The thing that interests me in Plato's writing here, is that from the outset he says the tale is ‘veritable’ -truthful, in other words. That’s no disguise.

The build up to the tale has always been fascinating for me, the section describing Solon being told this knowledge by the Egyptian priest.
After the priest jokes with Solon about how little the Greeks knew of the ages and deluges, and indeed their own past, he states an incredibly logical reason as to why they don’t know this stuff. He says to Solon also that after they’ve talked about it , he will show him the records of these events in the temple.
Does this imply that Solon learned and retold it, as he SAW proof? Interesting , that bit.
The 9000 years ago bit is not told as a stunned listener, but rather of the acceptance that the Egyptians had records of events this far back .
It’s also not challenged in the dialogue or seen as out of the ordinary either , by learned men.
He also says that you will hear Egyptian names that we recognise as Greek names , as the Nile delta region where the knowledge came from had a close relationship with proto-‘Athenians’.

It’s interesting to me that the dating of this tale coincides with known climate data. Events of such magnitude DID occur in this timeframe. He talks of the Old World, before these events , which would indeed have been a different place , what’s difficult for us to imagine is that this Pleistocene/Holocene dynamic crossover world actually existed , geologically, not very long ago .

a reply to: dragonridr

I don't get the impression that the Greeks of Plato's time were ok with a person going around and making up new stories about the gods.

It would be like me making up a story about Jesus Christ and telling it to Christians. But people back then didn't seem to comprehend the whole "separation of church and state" thing.

Imagine Dan Brown goes and writes the Davinci Code, and publishes it in the late middle ages.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't get the impression that the Greeks of Plato's time were ok with a person going around and making up new stories about the gods.

You might want to familiarize yourself with Greek Literature. There are literally thousands of plays and poems written throughout the Ancient period that do exactly that.

Harte

(Rabies Development, Right Brain, Inert Unified Field Earth, Generational Decay)
(element is systemic, end of life processes, the solution)


texasstarcave.com/index.php/2020/10/06/mapping-mars/

(Viewing from the Inside of Mars, the Warped Surface is Rendered, that is the Map............Earth's Geography Parallel is imposed on top of that, that is the answer)

This is the Answer, extermination of unclean genetic lines

God Gave Abraham Favor, Sodom and Gomorrah was cast down, that is in the African Location

God Gave David Favor, and Jerusalem/Babylon, was cast down, that is in the Isreal Area

God Gave Jesus Favor, and Europe was Cast down, (WW1 and WW2)

God Gave Moses Favor, and in Revelation, perhaps Russia Will be view, (has not happened) (if God reveals anything or casts something down out of his mercies, it won't be on planet earth) (See Below)

NUMBERS 26:10 And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died, what time the fire devoured two hundred and fifty men: and they became a sign.

NUMBERS 26:11 Notwithstanding the children of Korah died not.

NUMBERS 26:12 The sons of Simeon after their families: of Nemuel, the family of the Nemuelites: of Jamin, the family of the Jaminites: of Jachin, the family of the Jachinites:

II TIMOTHY 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

MATTHEW 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
............
............
............
............
It depends on what God does in terms of euthanasia, how much of that will be doubled..............God does nothing then the Son of Man does nothing, in terms of large scale euthanasia 1 to 2 billion................that doesn't mean that nothing will "have to take place out of necessity".................It depends on how much euthanasia i'm willing to use, how god reacted, what is the assessment of the situation at that time, and the feasible, result of claiming a nominal to low to none, amount of lives, in dealing with humanities suicide pleasure, and proclaiming god's mercies.

A given number of people will die from a unified field of any kind, because of generational decay dead flesh, up to 40percent or more in each country, some places much less.................there will also be a great deal of natural suffering and death if the earth propensity to field increases..............God doesn't have to do anything more then "coronavirus" or "coronavirus to rabies" on the subject.
............
............
............
............
What I said before is also still true, everyone high leadership position in the usa is expendable, there may have to be a new united states form, out of a few states, without those genetic lines living in it, also, remember, this is humanities accusation with god over dead flesh, there has to be a division for what is clean with god's mercies and the people. We'll have to see how things will go, very soon.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't get the impression that the Greeks of Plato's time were ok with a person going around and making up new stories about the gods.

You might want to familiarize yourself with Greek Literature. There are literally thousands of plays and poems written throughout the Ancient period that do exactly that.

Harte

Are you sure those were original creations, and not just retellings of popular myths?

The scale is at issue too, though. Even in the Middle Ages, a person could write down their personal experience of praying to Jesus, and god helping them. It wouldn't offend the church so long as it was limited to what priests were saying should happen. Even having a character in a play or poem pray to Jesus, and be helped, would probably be ok. It's no threat to the body of Christian Biblical works.

But coming up with a story about an ancient city founded by God/Jesus?

Have to remember that the Greeks had a law on the books against "impiety". It was actually illegal to say certain things about the gods.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't get the impression that the Greeks of Plato's time were ok with a person going around and making up new stories about the gods.

You might want to familiarize yourself with Greek Literature. There are literally thousands of plays and poems written throughout the Ancient period that do exactly that.

Harte

Are you sure those were original creations, and not just retellings of popular myths?

The scale is at issue too, though. Even in the Middle Ages, a person could write down their personal experience of praying to Jesus, and god helping them. It wouldn't offend the church so long as it was limited to what priests were saying should happen. Even having a character in a play or poem pray to Jesus, and be helped, would probably be ok. It's no threat to the body of Christian Biblical works.

But coming up with a story about an ancient city founded by God/Jesus?

Have to remember that the Greeks had a law on the books against "impiety". It was actually illegal to say certain things about the gods.

Greek myths about their gods varied greatly between different tellers.
The same myth about the same god (or gods) can be read from different authors - and those tales don't even say the same things.
What I'm saying is that there wasn't some "Olympian doctrine" or dogma like what exists today for various religions. Impiety thus would involve insulting the gods. I don't even think simple unbelief would be considered impiety by the ancient Greeks, as long as you weren't evangelizing your unbelief.

The idea that Poseidon had a son that doesn't appear in earlier myths wouldn't be a problem, and the idea that Poseidon established a city or a culture or a group of people only glorifies Poseidon. It doesn't detract from him.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't get the impression that the Greeks of Plato's time were ok with a person going around and making up new stories about the gods.

You might want to familiarize yourself with Greek Literature. There are literally thousands of plays and poems written throughout the Ancient period that do exactly that.

Harte

Are you sure those were original creations, and not just retellings of popular myths?

The scale is at issue too, though. Even in the Middle Ages, a person could write down their personal experience of praying to Jesus, and god helping them. It wouldn't offend the church so long as it was limited to what priests were saying should happen. Even having a character in a play or poem pray to Jesus, and be helped, would probably be ok. It's no threat to the body of Christian Biblical works.

But coming up with a story about an ancient city founded by God/Jesus?

Have to remember that the Greeks had a law on the books against "impiety". It was actually illegal to say certain things about the gods.

Greek myths about their gods varied greatly between different tellers.
The same myth about the same god (or gods) can be read from different authors - and those tales don't even say the same things.

Indo European myths vary widely by region, to the point where the gods even have different names and (sometimes) traits.

Sure. But that's to be expected after so long a time.

What I'm saying is that there wasn't some "Olympian doctrine" or dogma like what exists today for various religions. Impiety thus would involve insulting the gods. I don't even think simple unbelief would be considered impiety by the ancient Greeks, as long as you weren't evangelizing your unbelief.

For most of Greece's history it wasn't all one country. Just a bunch of city states.

Each one had its own preferred view of the matter (including choosing favorite patron gods/goddesses.)

The crime of "impiety" applied to saying things against the views of the city you were in.

The idea that Poseidon had a son that doesn't appear in earlier myths wouldn't be a problem, and the idea that Poseidon established a city or a culture or a group of people only glorifies Poseidon. It doesn't detract from him.

Harte

Except for the part where that society went on to fail.........

It failed at the behest of the gods themselves, like other myths made up about ruins the Greeks were aware of.
The point was, Athens was "failing."

Harte

Assuming that this account of Atlantis came from Plato who lived around 400 BC, it was originally handed down from an Egyptian source and was likely embellished by Solon who was a poet and not a scientist before Plato was even born.

The Athenians may not have had much knowledge of Egypt in the time of the pyramids 3000 BC to about 1600 BC.
The Theran eruption that reshaped the island of Santorini in the southern Aegean sea occurred about 1600 BC.
By 1600 BC the pole star Thuban which was very close to stationary between equinoxes in 2880 BC had been replaced by the twin northern pole stars Kochab and Pherkad.

Plato talked about Atlantis while telling the myth of the Phaëton, son of the god Helios, who drove a chariot of fire across the sky. Many Greek Myths were later refined, The asteroid that orbits closest to the sun and is thought to be the source of the Geminid meteor showers was named 3200 Phaeton for example. The 10,000 years may well have represented something else, similar to the way Homer uses the metonic cycle in the Odyssey or the way the whale is used in the bible account of Jonah.


The eye of the Sahara is south of Cairo and well south of the Aegean sea and wasn't mentioned by Plato that I recall.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LABTECH767

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: gb540

originally posted by: lostbook
Heck, if someone paid me then I'd go and dig myself; I am Lostbook, after all, and I came to ATS to find information that has been lost or forgotten to the sands of time. Maybe the secrets of Atlantis are waiting to be found! What say you, ATS?

Party over if Hawass or similar got there first.

Is Hawass still around? I thought he retired or something like that....?

He was involved in a scandal (other than the hidden scandal of hiding inconvenient discoveries and worse) which had something to do with the black market, smuggling and other less than palatable accusations.

He was accused of that by idiots and rivals. He was cleared of those accusations. That was well before the new government came in and installed their own Director.

As for the OP topic, Herodotus never drew a world map. Herodotus never created any map at all.

There have been maps drawn that represent various people's ideas of what Herodotus may have thought the world looked like. These are based entirely on Herodotus' descriptions in the "Histories."

In one of the books of the "Histories," Herodotus describes the people that live "in the shadow" of a mountain he refers to as "Mount Atlas," which, from his own words, is a mountain in the Atlas mountain range - north of the eye.

He calls these people "Atlantes," sometimes translated as "Atlanteans," because of the proximity of that mountain and range.

The Atlas Mountains and, presumably, Mt. Atlas (whichever peak that refers to) were named after the Titan Atlas. At one time, the Atlas Mountains represented the far distant edge of the known world, and the Atlas myth had him holding up the sky at the edge of the world. Thus the name of the range.

Please note that Atlas was the son of Iapetus, one of the Titans. Poseidon, an Olympian and son of Cronus (a different Titan) was (according to Plato) the father of King Atlas of Atlantis. According to Plato, it is from king Atlas that Atlantis got its name, which also led to the name of the ocean (Atlantic.) Atlantis literally translates as a possessive form of Atlas (The Atlantis Sea is the "Sea of Atlas," as the Atlantic Ocean is the "Ocean of Atlas.")

So Herodotus' "Atlantes" are not in any way related to the fictional people in Plato's allegory; rather Herodotus called them that due to their proximity to a mountain range bearing the name of the Titan Atlas, not the king Atlas.

Harte

I get that you don't not believe in antlantis. But as a student of history, even you must realize that it is possible for it to have existed at one time (not as an advanced civ, compared to today of course, but maybe advanced compared to the rest of the known world at the time). After all, take the city of Troy as an example. As you well know, it was thought a myth for many years before being proven to have existed. So would it not be better to say that it is unlikely but not impossible or fictional?

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LABTECH767

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: gb540

originally posted by: lostbook
Heck, if someone paid me then I'd go and dig myself; I am Lostbook, after all, and I came to ATS to find information that has been lost or forgotten to the sands of time. Maybe the secrets of Atlantis are waiting to be found! What say you, ATS?

Party over if Hawass or similar got there first.

Is Hawass still around? I thought he retired or something like that....?

He was involved in a scandal (other than the hidden scandal of hiding inconvenient discoveries and worse) which had something to do with the black market, smuggling and other less than palatable accusations.

He was accused of that by idiots and rivals. He was cleared of those accusations. That was well before the new government came in and installed their own Director.

As for the OP topic, Herodotus never drew a world map. Herodotus never created any map at all.

There have been maps drawn that represent various people's ideas of what Herodotus may have thought the world looked like. These are based entirely on Herodotus' descriptions in the "Histories."

In one of the books of the "Histories," Herodotus describes the people that live "in the shadow" of a mountain he refers to as "Mount Atlas," which, from his own words, is a mountain in the Atlas mountain range - north of the eye.

He calls these people "Atlantes," sometimes translated as "Atlanteans," because of the proximity of that mountain and range.

The Atlas Mountains and, presumably, Mt. Atlas (whichever peak that refers to) were named after the Titan Atlas. At one time, the Atlas Mountains represented the far distant edge of the known world, and the Atlas myth had him holding up the sky at the edge of the world. Thus the name of the range.

Please note that Atlas was the son of Iapetus, one of the Titans. Poseidon, an Olympian and son of Cronus (a different Titan) was (according to Plato) the father of King Atlas of Atlantis. According to Plato, it is from king Atlas that Atlantis got its name, which also led to the name of the ocean (Atlantic.) Atlantis literally translates as a possessive form of Atlas (The Atlantis Sea is the "Sea of Atlas," as the Atlantic Ocean is the "Ocean of Atlas.")

So Herodotus' "Atlantes" are not in any way related to the fictional people in Plato's allegory; rather Herodotus called them that due to their proximity to a mountain range bearing the name of the Titan Atlas, not the king Atlas.

Harte

I get that you don't not believe in antlantis. But as a student of history, even you must realize that it is possible for it to have existed at one time (not as an advanced civ, compared to today of course, but maybe advanced compared to the rest of the known world at the time). After all, take the city of Troy as an example. As you well know, it was thought a myth for many years before being proven to have existed. So would it not be better to say that it is unlikely but not impossible or fictional?

You are wrong about Troy. It wasn't considered myth by any consensus of historians. While there was debate about Troy, the fact is Troy runs deeply through a huge part of Greek mythology and as such it was considered to likely have been a real place.
I'd point out here that to this day it has not been established that the Hisarlik site actually is Homer's Troy, and nothing there corresponds with any Greek myth about the place.
Contrast that with Atlantis, which doesn't exist at all in any way in any Greek myth, nor any Egyptian myth, nor any other myth of the various peoples that were all supposedly subjugated by Atlantis.

The fact is, there never was a single mention of the place prior to Plato's Timaeus. That dialogue was written rather recently, as ancient writings go, yet no earlier mentions of even a place or culture similar to Atlantis?

Of course, this absence of any mention is more than enough to say that it never existed. However, my opinion is not based on that. Rather I base my opinion of what I have learned studying Plato (who, in The Republic, clearly states that moral education should always begin with fables,) the two Atlantis dialogues, and other of Plato's dialogues, along with the circumstances mentioned in Timeaus and Critias themselves (i.e. the Feast of Apaturia.)

Not to mention the complete absence of any trace of any outside culture accomplishing what Plato claimed.

The point is, anyone can claim that anything "could have" existed. But such claims, being entirely groundless, aren't legitimate and do not deserve even a moment's consideration.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LABTECH767

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: gb540

originally posted by: lostbook
Heck, if someone paid me then I'd go and dig myself; I am Lostbook, after all, and I came to ATS to find information that has been lost or forgotten to the sands of time. Maybe the secrets of Atlantis are waiting to be found! What say you, ATS?

Party over if Hawass or similar got there first.

Is Hawass still around? I thought he retired or something like that....?

He was involved in a scandal (other than the hidden scandal of hiding inconvenient discoveries and worse) which had something to do with the black market, smuggling and other less than palatable accusations.

He was accused of that by idiots and rivals. He was cleared of those accusations. That was well before the new government came in and installed their own Director.

As for the OP topic, Herodotus never drew a world map. Herodotus never created any map at all.

There have been maps drawn that represent various people's ideas of what Herodotus may have thought the world looked like. These are based entirely on Herodotus' descriptions in the "Histories."

In one of the books of the "Histories," Herodotus describes the people that live "in the shadow" of a mountain he refers to as "Mount Atlas," which, from his own words, is a mountain in the Atlas mountain range - north of the eye.

He calls these people "Atlantes," sometimes translated as "Atlanteans," because of the proximity of that mountain and range.

The Atlas Mountains and, presumably, Mt. Atlas (whichever peak that refers to) were named after the Titan Atlas. At one time, the Atlas Mountains represented the far distant edge of the known world, and the Atlas myth had him holding up the sky at the edge of the world. Thus the name of the range.

Please note that Atlas was the son of Iapetus, one of the Titans. Poseidon, an Olympian and son of Cronus (a different Titan) was (according to Plato) the father of King Atlas of Atlantis. According to Plato, it is from king Atlas that Atlantis got its name, which also led to the name of the ocean (Atlantic.) Atlantis literally translates as a possessive form of Atlas (The Atlantis Sea is the "Sea of Atlas," as the Atlantic Ocean is the "Ocean of Atlas.")

So Herodotus' "Atlantes" are not in any way related to the fictional people in Plato's allegory; rather Herodotus called them that due to their proximity to a mountain range bearing the name of the Titan Atlas, not the king Atlas.

Harte

I get that you don't not believe in antlantis. But as a student of history, even you must realize that it is possible for it to have existed at one time (not as an advanced civ, compared to today of course, but maybe advanced compared to the rest of the known world at the time). After all, take the city of Troy as an example. As you well know, it was thought a myth for many years before being proven to have existed. So would it not be better to say that it is unlikely but not impossible or fictional?

You are wrong about Troy. It wasn't considered myth by any consensus of historians. While there was debate about Troy, the fact is Troy runs deeply through a huge part of Greek mythology and as such it was considered to likely have been a real place.
I'd point out here that to this day it has not been established that the Hisarlik site actually is Homer's Troy, and nothing there corresponds with any Greek myth about the place.
Contrast that with Atlantis, which doesn't exist at all in any way in any Greek myth, nor any Egyptian myth, nor any other myth of the various peoples that were all supposedly subjugated by Atlantis.

The fact is, there never was a single mention of the place prior to Plato's Timaeus. That dialogue was written rather recently, as ancient writings go, yet no earlier mentions of even a place or culture similar to Atlantis?

Of course, this absence of any mention is more than enough to say that it never existed. However, my opinion is not based on that. Rather I base my opinion of what I have learned studying Plato (who, in The Republic, clearly states that moral education should always begin with fables,) the two Atlantis dialogues, and other of Plato's dialogues, along with the circumstances mentioned in Timeaus and Critias themselves (i.e. the Feast of Apaturia.)

Not to mention the complete absence of any trace of any outside culture accomplishing what Plato claimed.

The point is, anyone can claim that anything "could have" existed. But such claims, being entirely groundless, aren't legitimate and do not deserve even a moment's consideration.

Harte

My mistake, I "thought" I had heard and or read years ago that Troy was seen as such. So blame poor memory, as it is likely the case. Though you made me think of something, how much was written/known about Göbekli Tepe, prior to its discovery? Was it something that was known, just the location was lost? Honest question here, as I truly don't know the answer... though I will be going to look and see what more I can find out about that site and its history.

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LABTECH767

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: gb540

originally posted by: lostbook
Heck, if someone paid me then I'd go and dig myself; I am Lostbook, after all, and I came to ATS to find information that has been lost or forgotten to the sands of time. Maybe the secrets of Atlantis are waiting to be found! What say you, ATS?

Party over if Hawass or similar got there first.

Is Hawass still around? I thought he retired or something like that....?

He was involved in a scandal (other than the hidden scandal of hiding inconvenient discoveries and worse) which had something to do with the black market, smuggling and other less than palatable accusations.

He was accused of that by idiots and rivals. He was cleared of those accusations. That was well before the new government came in and installed their own Director.

As for the OP topic, Herodotus never drew a world map. Herodotus never created any map at all.

There have been maps drawn that represent various people's ideas of what Herodotus may have thought the world looked like. These are based entirely on Herodotus' descriptions in the "Histories."

In one of the books of the "Histories," Herodotus describes the people that live "in the shadow" of a mountain he refers to as "Mount Atlas," which, from his own words, is a mountain in the Atlas mountain range - north of the eye.

He calls these people "Atlantes," sometimes translated as "Atlanteans," because of the proximity of that mountain and range.

The Atlas Mountains and, presumably, Mt. Atlas (whichever peak that refers to) were named after the Titan Atlas. At one time, the Atlas Mountains represented the far distant edge of the known world, and the Atlas myth had him holding up the sky at the edge of the world. Thus the name of the range.

Please note that Atlas was the son of Iapetus, one of the Titans. Poseidon, an Olympian and son of Cronus (a different Titan) was (according to Plato) the father of King Atlas of Atlantis. According to Plato, it is from king Atlas that Atlantis got its name, which also led to the name of the ocean (Atlantic.) Atlantis literally translates as a possessive form of Atlas (The Atlantis Sea is the "Sea of Atlas," as the Atlantic Ocean is the "Ocean of Atlas.")

So Herodotus' "Atlantes" are not in any way related to the fictional people in Plato's allegory; rather Herodotus called them that due to their proximity to a mountain range bearing the name of the Titan Atlas, not the king Atlas.

Harte

I get that you don't not believe in antlantis. But as a student of history, even you must realize that it is possible for it to have existed at one time (not as an advanced civ, compared to today of course, but maybe advanced compared to the rest of the known world at the time). After all, take the city of Troy as an example. As you well know, it was thought a myth for many years before being proven to have existed. So would it not be better to say that it is unlikely but not impossible or fictional?

You are wrong about Troy. It wasn't considered myth by any consensus of historians. While there was debate about Troy, the fact is Troy runs deeply through a huge part of Greek mythology and as such it was considered to likely have been a real place.
I'd point out here that to this day it has not been established that the Hisarlik site actually is Homer's Troy, and nothing there corresponds with any Greek myth about the place.
Contrast that with Atlantis, which doesn't exist at all in any way in any Greek myth, nor any Egyptian myth, nor any other myth of the various peoples that were all supposedly subjugated by Atlantis.

The fact is, there never was a single mention of the place prior to Plato's Timaeus. That dialogue was written rather recently, as ancient writings go, yet no earlier mentions of even a place or culture similar to Atlantis?

Of course, this absence of any mention is more than enough to say that it never existed. However, my opinion is not based on that. Rather I base my opinion of what I have learned studying Plato (who, in The Republic, clearly states that moral education should always begin with fables,) the two Atlantis dialogues, and other of Plato's dialogues, along with the circumstances mentioned in Timeaus and Critias themselves (i.e. the Feast of Apaturia.)

Not to mention the complete absence of any trace of any outside culture accomplishing what Plato claimed.

The point is, anyone can claim that anything "could have" existed. But such claims, being entirely groundless, aren't legitimate and do not deserve even a moment's consideration.

Harte

My mistake, I "thought" I had heard and or read years ago that Troy was seen as such. So blame poor memory, as it is likely the case. Though you made me think of something, how much was written/known about Göbekli Tepe, prior to its discovery? Was it something that was known, just the location was lost? Honest question here, as I truly don't know the answer... though I will be going to look and see what more I can find out about that site and its history.

The narrative about Troy is hyped by con men trying to argue for Atlantis in order to maintain book sales and other revenue (like "convention" tickets and paid speaking.) I have no doubt you have heard it somewhere. I know I have.

Gobekli Tepe, when first discovered, was thought to be some Byzantine graveyard or something like that. It wasn't excavated.
Once excavation started, that's when they found out what they had.

Before the first discovery, nobody knew anything about it.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
The point was, Athens was "failing."

Harte

That is an interesting origin. So you're thinking that he's positing a great and might city, originally ruled by children of a god. And then saying that, if that city can fall into decadence, and be wiped out by a calamity, then Athens could also?

That does make it an interesting "fable"

originally posted by: Harte

Contrast that with Atlantis, which doesn't exist at all in any way in any Greek myth, nor any Egyptian myth, nor any other myth of the various peoples that were all supposedly subjugated by Atlantis.

The fact is, there never was a single mention of the place prior to Plato's Timaeus. That dialogue was written rather recently, as ancient writings go, yet no earlier mentions of even a place or culture similar to Atlantis?

It is interesting that Plato showed enough awareness of this to actually state he had learned of the story from his ancestor, who had learned it from priests in Egypt.

And Manetho's history (that parts that survive in commentaries anyway) has Egyptian history extending back over 10,000 years. (And with early rulers being children of gods). But rarely if ever attested to anywhere apart from Manetho.

Of course, this absence of any mention is more than enough to say that it never existed. However, my opinion is not based on that. Rather I base my opinion of what I have learned studying Plato (who, in The Republic, clearly states that moral education should always begin with fables,) the two Atlantis dialogues, and other of Plato's dialogues, along with the circumstances mentioned in Timeaus and Critias themselves (i.e. the Feast of Apaturia.)

Not to mention the complete absence of any trace of any outside culture accomplishing what Plato claimed.

The point is, anyone can claim that anything "could have" existed. But such claims, being entirely groundless, aren't legitimate and do not deserve even a moment's consideration.

Harte

In this Manetho commentary, I see on page 50, that the first king of Egypt was the Haephestus and he ruled for 727 years.

Followed by his son Helios, who ruled for a (much more reasonable) 80 years.

ryanfb.github.io...

I wonder where else anyone can confirm that?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Something that gets overlooked, a lot:
What is a god?

If you are into ancestor worship then a god would be the family members that had died before you, in fact the most powerful of all the gods to you would have been the oldest member of your family that had been known.

Then again the title "God" could just have been a misrepresentation of a royal title or militarize rank. Being a child of a god would mean nothing more then being of a certain bloodline. The idea of gods and what they can do was a later inflation of a persons exploits.

Just something to think about.

Connecting the royalty to god is so common it's not even worth considering that it is anything but political.

Even today, the monarchies that exist rule by "Divine Right" and almost all of them are (or were once) based on some connection to a divine personage or edict that supposedly supports their "right" to rule.

It starts out that way so that the people you rule might not wring your neck for constantly taking their property and telling them what to do for you.

Harte

Nevermind...this thread is too old to make the comment that I did.

a reply to: lostbook

Interesting, I know alot of people feel the same way.
The first time I saw the eye on Google earth that's the first thing I thought of myself.
"Hey this looks unusual". It looks exactly as Plato described it right?