Destroyed Atlantis = Menorah

[King of the Americas]

Your evidence, you don't seem to have it, perhaps Cameron will make a documentary "In search of King of Americas' lost evidence, fact or fiction?"

<snip>

I finished presenting my evidence pages back. The last few pages has just been rehashing.

Carvings, google earth images, biblical quotes, and of course links to Plato, as well as James Cameron's & National Geographic's evidentiary efforts.

*And for the record I am "King of the Americas."

Good to see a familiar tag!!

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 11

 

[King of the Americas]

I think you're on to something here abaddon! This is a photograph I took a couple of years ago while visiting Knowth.

Clearly a drawing of half of a ringed city and which kind of looks like a menorah if you squint your eyes and use your imagination.

View attachment 36812

Do you have any explanation for these symbols? What is their meaning? What society made them, when?

 

[King of the Americas]

Any menorahs in the sunken ruins?

They ARE sunken ruins, no one else here has accepted my google earth images as evidence of sunken anything...???

 

[Mojo]

They ARE sunken ruins, no one else here has accepted my google earth images as evidence of sunken anything...???

Any menorahs in the sunken ruins?

 

[Mojo]

...

No. There is NO "biblical" evidence it was adopted. NONE.

...

Are you serious?

I both read and quoted Exodus, wherein god or the biblical authority describes an object to be made of one piece of gold after a pattern on the mount. The speaker does NOT say where it is from, what it means, or why "7" is important.

*Sorry, but I will no longer be responding to you within this thread.*

You do realise that that actually agrees with Zivan's statement, don't you?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Are you serious?

I both read and quoted Exodus, wherein god or the biblical authority describes an object to be made of one piece of gold after a pattern on the mount. The speaker does NOT say where it is from, what it means, or why "7" is important.

*Sorry, but I will no longer be responding to you within this thread.*

Your evidence that the menorah was adopted form an existing symbol from an earlier culture is that the Bible doesn't explain where the symbol comes from? That's completely ass-backwards.

Do you have any explanation for these symbols? What is their meaning? What society made them, when?

Those are some of the exact questions you were asked to answer about your special Spanish symbol. You never did.

 

[Craig4]

They ARE sunken ruins, no one else here has accepted my google earth images as evidence of sunken anything...???

Of course they are sunken ruins, that does not make them Atlantis.

 

[SOdhner]

I finished presenting my evidence pages back. The last few pages has just been rehashing.

You've presented evidence for parts of your premise, but you haven't presented any evidence that actually links Atlantis to the Jewish people in general or the menorah in specific.

I'll break down your list of evidence below, and since you have never actually replied to me I'll just use the responses that I've already made, multiple times.

Carvings,

3. You've talked about some carvings and symbols. Not only are these symbols not evidence that links Atlantis to the Jewish people, you haven't even linked the symbols to either of those things individually.

Do you understand? You're providing evidence for your premise (specifically that someone made some circles and stuff on some rocks) but you haven't shown evidence that these circles and semicircles were made by survivors of Atlantis, that the Jewish people ever saw them, or that it was these etches that inspired the shape of the menorah. This isn't evidence linking Atlantis to the menorah.

google earth images,

1. You've talked about Plato, and some ruins off the coast of Spain. This part of the conversation is relevant to whether or not Atlantis exists at all, but it is not evidence that links Atlantis to the Jewish people.

Do you understand? You're providing evidence for your premise (specifically that there are some ruins off the coast of Spain) but even if we were to concede that these are in fact the remains of Atlantis (despite not matching our only description of Atlantis) this doesn't do anything to prove that people from these ruins made the symbols you've mentioned or that the Jewish people were ever in proximity to these ruins or the survivors of Atlantis. This isn't evidence linking Atlantis to the menorah.

biblical quotes,

2. You've talked about how symbols in general and the menorah in specific may have changed over time. This part of the conversation is relevant to establishing that it is possible the menorah could have been based on some other symbol, but it is not evidence that links Atlantis to the Jewish people.

Do you understand? You're providing evidence for your premise (specifically that the menorah may have been based on a different earlier symbol) but even if we were to concede that it absolutely was this doesn't do anything to prove what specific thing it was based on. Since the Bible passages you've reference don't mention Atlantis or Spain, this isn't evidence linking Atlantis to the menorah.

and of course links to Plato,

1. You've talked about Plato, and some ruins off the coast of Spain. This part of the conversation is relevant to whether or not Atlantis exists at all, but it is not evidence that links Atlantis to the Jewish people.

Do you understand? You're providing evidence for your premise (specifically that Atlantis was an actual place) but even if we were to concede that Plato wasn't just writing an allegorical tale and Atlantis was 100% real this doesn't do anything to prove that people from these Atlantis later made symbols that were eventually seen by the Jewish people and used as a basis for the menorah. This isn't evidence linking Atlantis to the menorah.

as well as James Cameron's & National Geographic's evidentiary efforts.

The fact that a video exists isn't proof of a link between Atlantis and the menorah. If that video CONTAINS evidence that links Atlantis and the menorah, why haven't you mentioned the specific evidence here on the forums?

Do you understand? We know there's a video. Nobody is debating that.
But you can't seem to make any reference to what in the video would possibly count as actual evidence linking Atlantis to the menorah. Others who have seen the video have stated that it does not contain this evidence. You seem to think we should all shell out actual cash to buy the video an watch it for ourselves, but the only thing you can present countering the claim that the video doesn't contain evidence linking Atlantis to the menorah is "watch the video". You can't say what this evidence actually is, which gives us the impression that it doesn't exist. If there is evidence linking Atlantis to the menorah in the video, you should be able to describe it here.

After all this time, all these posts, you have presented zero actual evidence linking Atlantis to the menorah. The only conclusion we can reasonably draw is that it doesn't exist and you're hoping you can argue for the basic premise that:
1. Atlantis exists
2. That there are some symbols carved on some rocks
2. The menorah was based on something else
And then completely ignore that you haven't shown evidence that:
1. That Atlanteans specifically were the ones that made those symbols.
2. That the Jewish people ever saw them.
3. That those symbols are specifically what they based the menorah on.

So even if we were to concede those first three points (I haven't seen anyone here actually be convinced that Atlantis as real, let alone that it was actually on the coast of Spain, but like I said we can certainly set that aside for now) you still would have ZERO evidence for the latter three points. None. Zilch.

 

[Craig4]

Of course they are sunken ruins, that does not make them Atlantis.

On review of the images, I'd like to amend this to say two of the images he provided, two may be sunken ruins. I looked on Questia and University of Leicester online library and found no published information on studies at any of the sites.

 

[King of the Americas]

...

After all this time, all these posts, you have presented zero actual evidence linking Atlantis to the menorah. The only conclusion we can reasonably draw is that it doesn't exist and you're hoping you can argue for the basic premise that:
1. Atlantis exists
2. That there are some symbols carved on some rocks
2. The menorah was based on something else
And then completely ignore that you haven't shown evidence that:
1. That Atlanteans specifically were the ones that made those symbols.
2. That the Jewish people ever saw them.
3. That those symbols are specifically what they based the menorah on.

...

My OP postulates that the Menorah represents or equals a symbol of Atlantis.

Now, this theory does NOT require 'Atlantis' to be aware of, or have ever used this symbol, or for any Jewish person to have ever personally seen or heard of 'Atlantis'.

To adopt a symbol, it only needs power.

I seriously doubt ANY Nazi ever knew their symbol came from passive peace-loving Buddhists.

---

Again, and really this is the last time, this case for a connection between the destroyed Atlantis and the menorah having a shared symbolism is not strong, direct, or clear to ANY skeptic here. But it is the case I present, believe in, and suggest it is the best possible explanation for the origin of the menorah.

If you have a better one, please produce it.

 

[King of the Americas]

On review of the images, I'd like to amend this to say two of the images he provided, two may be sunken ruins. I looked on Questia and University of Leicester online library and found no published information on studies at any of the sites.

Goolge Earth has become a poor-man's archaeology hobby.

Unknown sites are popping up everywhere someone looks.

There's a Ted Talk about modern spectroscopy and how it can determine where ruins are because the vegetation above it has different signature due to mineral and soil differences that produce different color leaves. Pretty cool stuff...

 

[Cervelo]

So ya still got nothing?

 

[SOdhner]

My OP postulates that the Menorah represents or equals to a symbol of Atlantis.

Right. At no point have I been confused about that. We're 100% on the same page on this one.

Now, this theory does NOT require 'Atlantis' to be aware of, or have ever used this symbol,

And this is where we may have a miscommunication. I want to be really clear, so please let me know if this is correct:

You are saying that the symbol you have been referring to might not have meant anything about Atlantis to actual Atlanteans. But, and please correct me if I'm wrong, it would still have to have been a reference to Atlantis by whoever actually made the symbols. Right? Are you suggesting those people, the ones that made the symbols, had ANY connection to Atlantis or did they just hear the story from Plato?

or for any Jewish person to have ever personally seen or heard of 'Atlantis'.

Okay, but they would have needed to see these symbols. Right? It wouldn't count if they saw a totally different (but visually identical) set of circles or semicircles that someone else drew as a reference to, say, raindrops on a lake? I mean, you are specifically saying that they saw some symbols that (whether they knew it or not) were made as a reference to Atlantis.

Again, and really this is the last time, this case for a connection between the destroyed Atlantis and the menorah having a shared symbolism is not strong, direct, or clear to ANY skeptic here.

Well, you say "this case" but so far all you've done is state what you believe. You haven't presented any evidence for that connection. This is what you're trying to prove:

1. There's some connection between the symbols and Atlantis.
2. There's some connection between the symbols and the menorah.

What you've spent this whole time talking about instead is this:

1. Atlantis was real, but was totally different in size, shape, location, etc. to what Plato described.
2. The menorah was adapted from some other symbol.

But even if I accept both of those things, it doesn't prove the connections you're asserting. I can say that Atlantis was real and in Spain, and that the menorah was adopted from something else, and I can simultaneously say that those symbols on the rocks weren't made as a reference to Atlantis and that the Jewish people never even saw them anyway.

Do you understand that? None of what you've said so far is evidence for those two key points. To repeat myself, these are the things you need to show actual evidence for:

1. There's some connection between the symbols and Atlantis.
2. There's some connection between the symbols and the menorah.


Stop repeating that line about how the Old Testament says they copied a pattern. That's fine. Whatever. It doesn't provide evidence that the pattern they copied was the one you say it is. Stop talking about Plato and ruins on the coast of Spain. Those things don't show any link between the symbols and the Jewish people.

But it is the case I present, believe in, and suggest it is the best possible explanation for the origin of the menorah.

Based on what, though? Since you don't have any evidence connecting the two, why do you think this is the best?

If you have a better one, please produce it.

It's a lamp. This explanation is objectively better:
1. It's plausible, because the Jewish people flat-out tell us it's a lamp.
2. It fits with available evidence, that being everything that refers to it as a lamp.
3. The passage in the Old Testament doesn't refer to modeling it after anything else. It refers to following the instructions that God is giving Moses. Essentially it's "Here on the mountain I'm giving you instructions, make them like in the instructions." It's not saying there was a literal pattern carved into the mountain. And if it was (it's not) then that pattern must have also included all the other furniture as well, not just the lamp.
4. It doesn't require the Jewish people to be in Spain.
5. It theory doesn't require the lost city of Atlantis to be real.
6. The timeline matches up, unlike yours.

So there you go. Like I said, it's objectively better. And because I know you're going to make a big fuss over my 3rd point, here's the text for everyone to read:

9*According to all that I show thee, the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the furniture thereof, even so shall ye make it.
10*And they shall make an ark of acacia-wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.
11*And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about.
12*And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four feet thereof; and two rings shall be on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it.
13*And thou shalt make staves of acacia-wood, and overlay them with gold.
14*And thou shalt put the staves into the rings on the sides of the ark, wherewith to bear the ark.
15*The staves shall be in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it.
16*And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee.
17*And thou shalt make an ark-cover of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.
18*And thou shalt make two cherubim of gold; of beaten work shalt thou make them, at the two ends of the ark-cover.
19*And make one cherub at the one end, and one cherub at the other end; of one piece with the ark-cover shall ye make the cherubim of the two ends thereof.
20*And the cherubim shall spread out their wings on high, screening the ark-cover with their wings, with their faces one to another; toward the ark-cover shall the faces of the cherubim be.
21*And thou shalt put the ark-cover above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.
22*And there I will meet with thee, and I will speak with thee from above the ark-cover, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.
23*And thou shalt make a table of acacia-wood: two cubits shall be the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.
24*And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, and make thereto a crown of gold round about.
25*And thou shalt make unto it a border of a handbreadth round about, and thou shalt make a golden crown to the border thereof round about.
26*And thou shalt make for it four rings of gold, and put the rings in the four corners that are on the four feet thereof.
27*Close by the border shall the rings be, for places for the staves to bear the table.
28*And thou shalt make the staves of acacia-wood, and overlay them with gold, that the table may be borne with them.
29*And thou shalt make the dishes thereof, and the pans thereof, and the jars thereof, and the bowls thereof, wherewith to pour out; of pure gold shalt thou make them.
30*And thou shalt set upon the table showbread before Me alway.
31*And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made, even its base, and its shaft; its cups, its knops, and its flowers, shall be of one piece with it.
32*And there shall be six branches going out of the sides thereof: three branches of the candlestick out of the one side thereof, and three branches of the candle-stick out of the other side thereof;
33*three cups made like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower; and three cups made like almond-blossoms in the other branch, a knop and a flower; so for the six branches going out of the candlestick.
34*And in the candlestick four cups made like almond-blossoms, the knops thereof, and the flowers thereof.
35*And a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, for the six branches going out of the candlestick.
36*Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it; the whole of it one beaten work of pure gold.
37*And thou shalt make the lamps thereof, seven; and they shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it.
38*And the tongs thereof, and the snuffdishes thereof, shall be of pure gold.
39*Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made, with all these vessels.
40*And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount.

 

[King of the Americas]

...
31*And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold: of beaten work shall the candlestick be made, even its base, and its shaft; its cups, its knops, and its flowers, shall be of one piece with it.
32*And there shall be six branches going out of the sides thereof: three branches of the candlestick out of the one side thereof, and three branches of the candle-stick out of the other side thereof;
33*three cups made like almond-blossoms in one branch, a knop and a flower; and three cups made like almond-blossoms in the other branch, a knop and a flower; so for the six branches going out of the candlestick.
34*And in the candlestick four cups made like almond-blossoms, the knops thereof, and the flowers thereof.
35*And a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, and a knop under two branches of one piece with it, for the six branches going out of the candlestick.
36*Their knops and their branches shall be of one piece with it; the whole of it one beaten work of pure gold.
37*And thou shalt make the lamps thereof, seven; and they shall light the lamps thereof, to give light over against it.
38*And the tongs thereof, and the snuffdishes thereof, shall be of pure gold.
39*Of a talent of pure gold shall it be made, with all these vessels.
40*And see that thou make them after their pattern, which is being shown thee in the mount.

Yes, I NEVER argued it was not a lamp.

You went through a lot of trouble to flap your wings about, but you never got off the ground.

Why "7" and why this "pattern"...where did this symbolism come from?

Also, your evidence proves that this biblical authority "shown" the "pattern" to them. They didn't create it, on their own. Their religious authority just pointed to it, and said this is cool, build it.

You've only re-provided proof that the symbol was adopted, and you have not produced an alternative for the origin of symbolism behind the artifact people now worship.

 

[Craig4]

Goolge Earth has become a poor-man's archaeology hobby.

Unknown sites are popping up everywhere someone looks.

There's a Ted Talk about modern spectroscopy and how it can determine where ruins are because the vegetation above it has different signature due to mineral and soil differences that produce different color leaves. Pretty cool stuff...

Explain how this establishes your Atlantis in the images you provided. Please show your work.

 

[fuelair]

Greetings JREF'ers,

Truly it has been too long...

I hope all of you are well.

The thing that brings me back, is that I'd like feedback on a particular "woo-subject" I was introduced to last week.

So...along the Spanish coast are remnants of 'half' of Atlantis...

http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/tag/hierarchical-constraint-satisfaction/

There are some who postulate that the Menorah was misconstrued as a candle stick, rather than a symbol of the lost city, with half its concentric circles missing.

I've always found Atlantis to be the unfound Troy- a mythical city lost to our knowledge, trapped behind indecipherable passages, waiting to be found by someone willing to look where others have not...

Thoughts?

On this, NO, it isn't.

 

[King of the Americas]

Explain how this establishes your Atlantis in the images you provided. Please show your work.

If the definition of Atlantis is a sunken city/civilization now at the bottom of the Atlantic, and I showed you sunken ruins off the Spanish coast...I thusly qualify those as "Atlantan"...

If the connection there is unclear, I'll lend you my ruler.

 

[King of the Americas]

On this, NO, it isn't.

Profound.

 

[SOdhner]

Yes, I NEVER argued it was not a lamp.

Semantics. You argued it didn't start as a lamp. I'm saying that the idea it could have ALWAYS been a lamp is the more plausible option.

Why "7" and why this "pattern"...where did this symbolism come from?

More than three arms on each side made it too easy to tip the lamp over.

Also, your evidence proves that this biblical authority "shown" the "pattern" to them. They didn't create it, on their own. Their religious authority just pointed to it, and said this is cool, build it.

Nah, that would only actually work if I believed that god existed and the old testament was in any way accurate. The problem is that you are lacking in reading comprehension. Read my post again: I was not in any way quoting that passage as evidence that I was correct. I was pointing out that my theory of "It's a lamp" is more plausible than yours because YOURS relies on that passage.

And that passage doesn't say what you think it does AND it relies on god being real and the old testament being accurate AND it implies that all the other furniture had the same source which doesn't mesh with your theory.

My "it's a lamp" theory requires none of that. It requires that some guys made a fancy lamp. And then, at some point, like so many things tied to religious ritual all the furniture in the temple got a 'just so' story that involves god saying so.

I notice you didn't actually address anything of substance in my post. Is that your way of acknowledging that you have no evidence showing:

1. There's some connection between the symbols and Atlantis.
2. There's some connection between the symbols and the menorah.

(If needed I can copy and paste from my other posts for the billionth time, but since you NEVER respond to these criticisms I figure I'll let you just scroll up for now.)

 

[SOdhner]

If the definition of Atlantis is a sunken city/civilization now at the bottom of the Atlantic, and I showed you sunken ruins off the Spanish coast...I thusly qualify those as "Atlantan"...

Okay but it either is or isn't Atlantis, right? Are you suggesting that it could be (as everyone here has suggested) just some non-Atlantis ruins? Is it enough for them to just have this one quality in common with Atlantis? Actually your whole thing is getting more vague. Just a few posts up you said:

Now, this theory does NOT require 'Atlantis' to be aware of, or have ever used this symbol

And I note that you put quotes around Atlantis. So are you no longer saying that these ruins have anything to do with Atlantis?

And since you're also saying Atlantis didn't have to have anything to do with the symbols...?

Can you please, with no quotation marks or gratuitous use of qualifiers like 'if', tell us EXACTLY what you're saying the connection is between Atlantis and these symbols?