Destroyed Atlantis = Menorah

[Jack by the hedge]

Have you reviewed the links presented yet?

Do you mean have I watched the video? No. And "yet" is frankly optimistic.

Would it answer my question?

 

[King of the Americas]

Do you mean have I watched the video? No. And "yet" is frankly optimistic.

Would it answer my question?

The world may never know...

 

[Belz...]

I know that when you create a false narrative and then attack it, that's a fallacy of a straw-man type.

Not quite, but how exactly is my post anything like that? Saying that argument has no effect on you in an observation of mine, not a misrepresentation of your own arguments in order to make them easy to defeat.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Do you mean have I watched the video? No. And "yet" is frankly optimistic.

Would it answer my question?

It would not, it's full of base assertions, handwaving and no sources are presented. Also, as far as I recall, none of the questions you've asked KOTA is even brought up.

But hey, it's a convenient way for him to refuse to make an argument. Just point you to a movie and hope that shuts you up.

 

[SOdhner]

Did I get all that right?

Hey KotA, was that an accurate summary? If not, can you let me know which points were inaccurate?

 

[King of the Americas]

Hey, I'm new to this conversation because it took me a while to get all caught up. I've read through everything though, and I want to make sure I have this right. KotA, please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken:

THEORY:

1. Atlantis was a real place, despite only ever being described by fictional characters Plato made up.

The last link provided provides notes that Plato had contemporaries confirm the reports of Atlantis, as well as could be expected.

2. All the scholars that have studied Plato are wrong about him making things up for his writings, because KotA is sure he wouldn't have done that.

Please provide peer-reviewed experts' opinions on whether Plato was describing 'fictions'...

My experts disagree with your hearsay.

3. Plato (or at least the fictional character that was 'talking' about Atlantis in Plato's writings) was wrong about the location of Atlantis, despite specifically making it clear that it was at a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, such that it was vital to use Atlantis as a stopping-off point to reach other islands. Instead, it was on the coast of Spain.

There are sunken ruins along the Spanish coast that may or may not be Atlantis.

That said, 'history' is never one story from one source. It is an accumulation of the best possible evidence of a particular event. Simply put, individuals make mistakes- in their writings, perceptions, and accumulations of facts. To toss out entirely a story because it did not get all of the facts exactly right is... "throwing the baby out with the bath water"...

DON'T DO THAT.

4. Likewise, it was not actually an island. It was just... on the coast of Spain.

Maybe, history is still murky.

5. The detailed description of the island was all wrong. The size must have been wrong, but that also means that the population was wrong, the mountains couldn't have been there, presumably they didn't have elephants?

^See above point.^

6. The part about Atlantis sinking causing the ocean in that area to be impossible to navigate 9000 years later has to be wrong, because as mentioned it was on or just off the coast of Spain and boats had no trouble sailing around there.

Check Plato's story. He said before the catastrophe the waters WERE navigable (presumably known/charted), after which the shoals were NOT navigable because 'presumably' it took a while to re-map the new ocean bottom.

7. Despite being a powerful seafaring nation that traveled far and conquered many lands, once the island sunk everyone forgot about it except for a handful of people that passed it down until it got to Plato. Presumably the many many survivors that weren't at home when disaster struck just resolved to never speak of it again.

Well, not "everyone"...

8. Symbols that have been found (not in underwater ruins) must be a reference to Atlantis, even though concentric circles are extremely common things to draw and even though we have nothing that indicates the people of Atlantis referred to their island that way nor is there anything linking the rocks or artifacts in question to the legend of Atlantis.

It does not matter how or even if Atlantis used the symbol, as their own. After Atlantis, the myth of a concentric city being destroyed is the 'best most likely source' of the menorah.

9. Some symbols that have been found are semicircles, and even though Atlantis wasn't a bunch of semicircles these must also be a reference to Atlantis. They also must be a menorah, despite not looking like a menorah and there being nothing in any way connecting this rock to the ancient Jews.

Must be?

No.

Most likely the origin, Yes.

10. The Jewish people are mistaken about the meaning of their own religious symbols.

Yes. The 'meaning' of the menorah has been both created and augmented. The number of candles has even changed, as well as its original semi-circular shape.

God/the biblical authority told them to build a gold object, but didn't tell them why, or where the "pattern" came from.

11. Plato is either wrong about how old Atlantis is, or the articles that were linked were wrong about the age of the ruins and artifacts, OR these things came about from the descendants of the survivors of Atlantis rather than being from Atlantis directly (reminder, Atlantis sank about 11,500 years ago according to Plato's fictional character's story (9k + age of Plato)).

Did I get all that right?

No...

 

[SOdhner]

1. Atlantis was a real place, despite only ever being described by fictional characters Plato made up.

The last link provided provides notes that Plato had contemporaries confirm the reports of Atlantis, as well as could be expected.

I don't see anything of the sort. I've been reading the questionable sites you've been linking to and I don't recall seeing anything like this, nor is there any reference to it at any of the more legitimate sources I've read. If you can give me more details that would be great. What is the specific source?

2. All the scholars that have studied Plato are wrong about him making things up for his writings, because KotA is sure he wouldn't have done that.

Please provide peer-reviewed experts' opinions on whether Plato was describing 'fictions'...

My experts disagree with your hearsay.

Hahaha, nope. That's like me saying that if you can't prove the moon ISN'T made of cheese then it is. The burden of proof is on you, and all of the actual scholars have NO problem thinking that Atlantis being fictional fits with what we know of the work itself and Plato in general. Your "experts" are conspiracy theorists and treasure hunters, not experts on Plato.

3. Plato (or at least the fictional character that was 'talking' about Atlantis in Plato's writings) was wrong about the location of Atlantis, despite specifically making it clear that it was at a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, such that it was vital to use Atlantis as a stopping-off point to reach other islands. Instead, it was on the coast of Spain.

There are sunken ruins along the Spanish coast that may or may not be Atlantis.

You seem to be trying to weasel out of saying this is Atlantis. If it's not Atlantis, it's completely irrelevant to this whole discussion.

And let's be very clear - if this IS what you are calling Atlantis, it is in the TOTALLY wrong spot according to Plato. Not just a little off course, but totally wrong to the point of making no sense in his story.

4. Likewise, it was not actually an island. It was just... on the coast of Spain.

Maybe, history is still murky.

Again, if these ruins aren't Atlantis they're irrelevant and I don't know why you've been wasting so much time talking about them, and if they ARE then Plato's account was absurdly wrong.

5. The detailed description of the island was all wrong. The size must have been wrong, but that also means that the population was wrong, the mountains couldn't have been there, presumably they didn't have elephants?

^See above point.^

^See above point.^

And then add them all together - Wrong size, not an island, wrong location... at this point there's nothing left that IS similar to the story of Atlantis, other than it being underwater. But since we can all agree that being underwater is not, in itself, enough to declare something to be Atlantis... what have you got, exactly? It's like if I said I found Bigfoot, and then held up a large toad. It's the wrong kind of animal, the wrong size, really has no resemblance to Bigfoot at all... but it's an animal! And I found it!

6. The part about Atlantis sinking causing the ocean in that area to be impossible to navigate 9000 years later has to be wrong, because as mentioned it was on or just off the coast of Spain and boats had no trouble sailing around there.

Check Plato's story. He said before the catastrophe the waters WERE navigable (presumably known/charted), after which the shoals were NOT navigable because 'presumably' it took a while to re-map the new ocean bottom.

"For the ocean there was at that time navigable" and then, "For which reason the sea in those parts is impassable and impenetrable, because there is a shoal of mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island."

You're completely wrong. So, again, this shows that Plato was NOT describing an area along the Spanish coast.

7. Despite being a powerful seafaring nation that traveled far and conquered many lands, once the island sunk everyone forgot about it except for a handful of people that passed it down until it got to Plato. Presumably the many many survivors that weren't at home when disaster struck just resolved to never speak of it again.

Well, not "everyone"...

Essentially everyone, yeah. This was a large nation, that took over several other countries through military conquest! And then... everyone forgot about them, such that we have no mention of them aside from the dialoge of a fictional character in a thing Plato wrote. If Plato's account was even remotely accurate, thousands and thousands of Atlanteans must have been away from home when disaster struck. They all just forgot about it? All the people they had conquered forgot? All the people they traded with forgot? Only Plato documented this legend, and did so in the form of a dialogue from a fictional character?

8. Symbols that have been found (not in underwater ruins) must be a reference to Atlantis, even though concentric circles are extremely common things to draw and even though we have nothing that indicates the people of Atlantis referred to their island that way nor is there anything linking the rocks or artifacts in question to the legend of Atlantis.

It does not matter how or even if Atlantis used the symbol, as their own. After Atlantis, the myth of a concentric city being destroyed is the 'best most likely source' of the menorah.

Hang on there, buddy. I didn't even get to the menorah part yet. You haven't shown that "the myth of a concentric city being destroyed" was even a thing for the people in general. Concentric circles are a really common pattern - why do you assume they refer to Atlantis at all? And why do you even think that Atlantis looked like concentric circles, considering you are relying on Plato being mistaken about the location, size, and general form of Atlantis? They're CIRCLES. Maybe someone was drawing ripples on water. That's an image that every human on earth can relate to. I'm going to arbitrarily declare that's what this was, actually. I don't have any evidence, but neither do you. So now let's see which one is more likely... hmm... looks like mine is, due to it being so widely known.

9. Some symbols that have been found are semicircles, and even though Atlantis wasn't a bunch of semicircles these must also be a reference to Atlantis. They also must be a menorah, despite not looking like a menorah and there being nothing in any way connecting this rock to the ancient Jews.

Must be?

No.

Most likely the origin, Yes.

Most likely based on WHAT? On the fact that... uh...

Shoot, hang on. I'm sure you've offered up some evidence somewhere. Hmm. Nope! Show that the Jewish people were in the same place as this rock at a time that makes sense for the carving to be there and for the menorah not to be a thing yet. Then, show me any reason that they would have been so impressed by this scribble that they would turn it into an important symbol. Then, show me why that explanation is MORE likely than it being exactly what it looks like - a candelabra.

10. The Jewish people are mistaken about the meaning of their own religious symbols.

Yes. The 'meaning' of the menorah has been both created and augmented. The number of candles has even changed, as well as its original semi-circular shape.

God/the biblical authority told them to build a gold object, but didn't tell them why, or where the "pattern" came from.

They say it's a lamp, it looks like a lamp, and there's no connection between the Jewish people and Atlantis... but it must be Atlantis? Other than just blindly asserting it, what's your actual evidence? You keep talking about how it could have been, but that's true of almost anything. What if I assert that the menorah was actually based on a tree? I have the advantage here, because I can prove they saw trees but you can't prove they saw Atlantis (or any trace thereof). So mine is, absent any actual evidence, the more plausible explanation.

11. Plato is either wrong about how old Atlantis is, or the articles that were linked were wrong about the age of the ruins and artifacts, OR these things came about from the descendants of the survivors of Atlantis rather than being from Atlantis directly (reminder, Atlantis sank about 11,500 years ago according to Plato's fictional character's story (9k + age of Plato)).

You didn't reply to this one.

Did I get all that right?

No...

I don't know, looks like I did pretty well to me.

 

[King of the Americas]

I don't see anything of the sort. ...

http://www.ancient.eu/atlantis/

I can see how it was missed...

I responded- "More evidence no one will address."

 

[King of the Americas]

...

They say it's a lamp, it looks like a lamp, and there's no connection between the Jewish people and Atlantis... but it must be Atlantis? Other than just blindly asserting it, what's your actual evidence? You keep talking about how it could have been, but that's true of almost anything. What if I assert that the menorah was actually based on a tree? I have the advantage here, because I can prove they saw trees but you can't prove they saw Atlantis (or any trace thereof). So mine is, absent any actual evidence, the more plausible explanation.

...

But WHY a lamp, at all? Why was a lamp important? Why was the shape described as a "pattern?" Why have the number of candles NOT remained stable? Why have all of the earliest carvings included semi-circles but now the shape is 'more' candelabra?

I didn't say "could have been"...I said it is the "mostly likely origin" of the menorah.

We'll talk more after you've review that link.

 

[SOdhner]

http://www.ancient.eu/atlantis/

I can see how it was missed...

I responded- "More evidence no one will address."

Yeah, I followed and read that link at the time. Just did it again. You said:

The last link provided provides notes that Plato had contemporaries confirm the reports of Atlantis, as well as could be expected.

But nothing at that link says anything of the sort. At all. I genuinely have no idea what you're referring to. Did you maybe paste in the wrong link?

And are you going to reply to the rest of my post? (EDIT: I now see you're replying to at least one other part but as a separate post for some reason.)

 

[King of the Americas]

...



But nothing at that link says anything of the sort. At all. I genuinely have no idea what you're referring to. Did you maybe paste in the wrong link?

And are you going to reply to the rest of my post? (EDIT: I now see you're replying to at least one other part but as a separate post for some reason.)

My bad, the story was confirmed BEFORE Plato:

"Critias’ story is introduced by another guest Hermocrates (a historical general from Syracuse) who urges Critias to tell his story "that goes back a long way" (20d). Critias begins by emphasising his story is true and was vouched for by Solon, the Greek statesman and poet who lived c. 640 - c. 560 BCE. Critias acknowledges his story is "a very strange one, but even so, every word of it is true" (20d). He says that Solon told it to his friend Dropides, Critias’ great-grandfather, and it was passed on down the family generations. Solon, we are told, heard the story on his travels in Egypt, specifically by priestly scholars at Sais, and had meant to put it in writing but never found the opportunity. Critias would like to tell the story because it illustrates one of Athens’ greatest ever achievements but has, unfortunately, been forgotten over time due to its great antiquity, according to the Egyptian priests, 9,000 years before Plato."

 

[SOdhner]

If you're going to reply to each part of my post as a separate message this is going to get really messy really quickly.

But WHY a lamp, at all? Why was a lamp important? Why was the shape described as a "pattern?" Why have the number of candles NOT remained stable? Why have all of the earliest carvings included semi-circles but now the shape is 'more' candelabra?

Stop, and read what I wrote. You have NO EVIDENCE linking this to Atlantis. None. So none of the questions you ask above - even if I were to concede all of them as valid questions - mean anything. You can talk all day about how it COULD be a reference to Atlantis, but without any reason to think it IS it's a silly exercise. It COULD be a lamp, and at least that theory has some logic behind it (they say it's a lamp, a fancy lamp is a logical thing to have as part of a temple, etc.) It COULD be a tree. It COULD be an upside-down rainbow. It COULD be something lost forever to antiquity.

You need to provide positive evidence linking it to Atlantis, not just curved lines.

I didn't say "could have been"...I said it is the "mostly likely origin" of the menorah.

How is it more likely than any of my suggestions above? Why is it MORE likely that it's a reference to a mythical lost city with no connection to the Jewish people? How is that more likely than "it's a lamp like they said" or "it's a tree" or literally anything else?

 

[SOdhner]

My bad, the story was confirmed BEFORE Plato:

"Critias’ story is introduced by another guest Hermocrates (a historical general from Syracuse) who urges Critias to tell his story "that goes back a long way" (20d). Critias begins by emphasising his story is true and was vouched for by Solon, the Greek statesman and poet who lived c. 640 - c. 560 BCE. Critias acknowledges his story is "a very strange one, but even so, every word of it is true" (20d). He says that Solon told it to his friend Dropides, Critias’ great-grandfather, and it was passed on down the family generations. Solon, we are told, heard the story on his travels in Egypt, specifically by priestly scholars at Sais, and had meant to put it in writing but never found the opportunity. Critias would like to tell the story because it illustrates one of Athens’ greatest ever achievements but has, unfortunately, been forgotten over time due to its great antiquity, according to the Egyptian priests, 9,000 years before Plato."

Haha nope! That's a line of DIALOGUE from a FICTIONAL CHARACTER in Plato's writings. You can't present that as research. Seriously?

 

[King of the Americas]

If you're going to reply to each part of my post as a separate message this is going to get really messy really quickly.



Stop, and read what I wrote. You have NO EVIDENCE linking this to Atlantis. None. So none of the questions you ask above - even if I were to concede all of them as valid questions - mean anything. You can talk all day about how it COULD be a reference to Atlantis, but without any reason to think it IS it's a silly exercise. It COULD be a lamp, and at least that theory has some logic behind it (they say it's a lamp, a fancy lamp is a logical thing to have as part of a temple, etc.) It COULD be a tree. It COULD be an upside-down rainbow. It COULD be something lost forever to antiquity.

You need to provide positive evidence linking it to Atlantis, not just curved lines.



How is it more likely than any of my suggestions above? Why is it MORE likely that it's a reference to a mythical lost city with no connection to the Jewish people? How is that more likely than "it's a lamp like they said" or "it's a tree" or literally anything else?

Agreed.

Okay, look, 'I' have no evidence. 'I' am not an archaeologist, nor have I ever visited Spain, been underwater in the Atlantic, or seen ANY cave or "pattern" on a mount. You are going to have to review the links offered, if we are going to discuss the findings.

Cameron & National Geographic spent millions creating that piece. If you reject their findings, so be it. But it is intellectually dishonest to say they produced no positive evidence.

Because people adopt powerful or important symbols, for familiar reasons, in the adoption and creation of new power structures. Take the Christmas tree or Easter eggs...ask a Christian why they worship these things. Do ANY of them know about Estra and her bird turned red egg laying rabbit? That cultural appropriation happened in a few hundred years, and yet most Christians are oblivious to these origins of "Christian" symbols. Crucifixes are a symbol, adopted because it was fixed to an important event. Atlantis was THOUSANDS of years before Plato wrote of it...history is easily lost.

WHY a lamp with 7 burners, that are now 9 candles? What event was the original "pattern" connected to?

 

[King of the Americas]

Haha nope! That's a line of DIALOGUE from a FICTIONAL CHARACTER in Plato's writings. You can't present that as research. Seriously?

Yes.

Stop "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"...

 

[SOdhner]

Okay, look, 'I' have no evidence.

You are going to have to review the links offered, if we are going to discuss the findings.

I did.

Cameron & National Geographic spent millions creating that piece. If you reject their findings, so be it. But it is intellectually dishonest to say they produced no positive evidence.

They didn't, though. What specific evidence have they provided? I've followed your links and read your posts and I've seen nothing linking Atlantis and the menorah.

Take the Christmas tree or Easter eggs...

Nope. Like I already said, showing that it could hypothetically be the case doesn't in any way show that it's likely or that it happened.

Also you haven't responded to the majority of my post.

 

[SOdhner]

Haha nope! That's a line of DIALOGUE from a FICTIONAL CHARACTER in Plato's writings. You can't present that as research. Seriously?

Yes.

Stop "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"...

There's no baby. There's hardly any bathwater.

I mean, if we are now counting dialogue from an author's fictional characters as research the sky is the limit. Do you know how many people can independently verify the existence of Hogwarts? Harry Potter, Luna Lovegood, Voldemort, uh... okay well it's been a while since I read the books but you get the idea. I could list off every single character, and then also count all the authorities they quote.

Of course this also proves every religion ever! Even the ones that are contradictory.

Everything in the Bible is true, we have all the characters to back it all up. The flood, the end of the world, and everything in between! Same for the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, you name it. They all have plenty of characters that provide "research".

 

[Zivan]

@KOTA

You seem to be confused about what a menorah even is. That certainly does not help your "theory" at all.

But WHY a lamp, at all? Why was a lamp important?

Uh.....because lights were needed inside the mishkan, and later the temples, which is what the menorah was made for.

Why was the shape described as a "pattern?"

Because it was a pattern, based on BOTANY!!! The instructions given included, "branches", "stem/stalk", "almonds", "flowers".

Why have the number of candles NOT remained stable?

There were NO candles. It was an oil lamp. The menorah (hebrew word for "lamp") was used in the mishkan, and the first and second temples. The second temple was destroyed in 70 CE. Candles were not even used in the near east untill ~400 CE.

The original design stated 7 oil holders. That number has NOT changed. Even today, whether oil is used, or candles, it is STILL 7 !!!!!!

You are confusing the 7 branch menorah, with a hanukiyah. They are NOT the same thing.

A hanukiyah has 9 oil cups, or candles, and can be any shape or design, with one of the 9 (shamash) off set from the other 8.

Why have all of the earliest carvings included semi-circles but now the shape is 'more' candelabra?

What does this mean? There was NO specification as to whether the branches were straight or curved. Some scholars, such as Maimonides, thought the original branches could have been straight. The earliest carved etchings we have show both semi-circular branches and elliptical

WHY a lamp with 7 burners, that are now 9 candles? What event was the original "pattern" connected to?

See above.

 

[Zivan]

There's no baby. There's hardly any bathwater.

You are being generous. I did not even see any bathwater at all!

I really enjoyed your initial re-cap, and your follow up rebuttals...

I mean, if we are now counting dialogue from an author's fictional characters as research the sky is the limit. Do you know how many people can independently verify the existence of Hogwarts? Harry Potter, Luna Lovegood, Voldemort, uh... okay well it's been a while since I read the books but you get the idea. I could list off every single character, and then also count all the authorities they quote.

Of course this also proves every religion ever! Even the ones that are contradictory.

Everything in the Bible is true, we have all the characters to back it all up. The flood, the end of the world, and everything in between! Same for the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, you name it. They all have plenty of characters that provide "research".

 

[Foolmewunz]

My bad, the story was confirmed BEFORE Plato:

"Critias’ story is introduced by another guest Hermocrates (a historical general from Syracuse) who urges Critias to tell his story "that goes back a long way" (20d). Critias begins by emphasising his story is true and was vouched for by Solon, the Greek statesman and poet who lived c. 640 - c. 560 BCE. Critias acknowledges his story is "a very strange one, but even so, every word of it is true" (20d). He says that Solon told it to his friend Dropides, Critias’ great-grandfather, and it was passed on down the family generations. Solon, we are told, heard the story on his travels in Egypt, specifically by priestly scholars at Sais, and had meant to put it in writing but never found the opportunity. Critias would like to tell the story because it illustrates one of Athens’ greatest ever achievements but has, unfortunately, been forgotten over time due to its great antiquity, according to the Egyptian priests, 9,000 years before Plato."

I assume all those dates are in Old Testament years? Where a year could equal a day or a day could equal a millennium? 'Cuz there's this problem with this narrative, sort of your elephant in the refrigerator.... There was no Athens 9500 B.C.E. How did a non-existent city-state stop a mythical empire?