Message #70570

[Helios]

 
dhill757

Member
Member # 1890

Member Rated:
   posted 07-20-2004 10:19 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, Jonas, I am really disappointed in you. So now you bought into the "Plato made it all up theory" too? Fine, but I think it's pretty apparent here that a lot of Erick's evidence, eptimology, homographs and judgments are is in the eye of the beholder. Common sense should tell you that, even if Plato did make the whole thing up, he wouldn't need to insert a lot of needless metaphors in order to "wink" at the reader.
As for your other point, not enough is known about the Sea People to build a case for Atlantis. There probably never will be either, as most of the records pre-1200 b.c. have been destroyed according to the material I've studied. A loose conglomeration of cities that sometimes unite to make war on Egypt and the Hittites? Atlantis was supposed to be a large empire, in the ATLANTIC, not a loose alliance of city-states. They actually fit just as well, if not better, as a renegade people, post-Atlantis than the sole basis for Atlantis itself.

I noticed you didn't mention the time element, 1200 b.c. as opposed to 9000 b.c. in you impasssioned defense, nor the fact that the Sea People originated from Turkey while Plato clearly places Atlantis "beyond the Pillars of Hercules," in the Atlantic Ocean.

Where is the continent, larger than Libya and Asia combined..?

I know, next you'll say that it was not "bigger than" but "in the middle of."

What about the large, flat rectangular plain?
How about the elephants, do they get a lot of elephants in Turkey?

Two growing seasons??

Any canals there one hundred foot deep, five and a half miles long?

So long as we're quoting Plato, let's look at the whole account, shall we, not just the parts that suit our purposes.

Let me help you out with some of the answers to some of these, as, of course we know the same ones from the Santorini argument. Of course, we all know the answer to the time element factor, too, Solon mistook the Egyptian symbol for one thousand for one hundred, right? Clever. They look nothing alike.

The sad truth for both of you is that, if the Egyptians were involved, the time element wouldn't be as nebulous as anyone suggests, they were, to put it mildly, very accurate keepers of time.

Or maybe the Egyptians weren't involved at all, and Plato, or Solon, simply "made the whole thing up." In which case the new theory doesn't mean anything anyway because "academics" have long thought anyway. It's nothing new to them. In that case, buying into this would be akin to "selling out."

Friendship seems to be driving your defense of this, nothing more, and the sad truth of the matter is that neither of you is as educated on the subject as you would have others believe. When it comes to Atlantis, there are no experts. There's only one real account, that of Plato, and we're all entitled to read it.

This effort to come up with something new on Atlantis just to be "original" is really getting wearisome. Maybe the truth is just where it's always been said to be and you people can't find it, or have gotten tired of looking. Either you believe in it or you don't, but if you don't believe in it, the question remains, why even come here in the first place?

As I said once before, if you really didn't believe in Atlantis to begin with, were simply here to "solve a mystery," then it's not going to take a lot to convince you otherwise. Well, swell, solve the mystery for yourselves, put your friendship first, just don't expect most of us to take your word for it and come along for the ride, not nor, or ever. For most of us here, the mystery remains, and probably always will remain...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 544 | From: Madison | Registered: Mar 2004