WARNING - extra coffee alert - may need the whole danged pot!
Hola amigos,
This is a
very long reply, so I must ask your indulgence, or you are free to skip the whole thing and I will not be offended. Thank you in either case;
Don Jose - thank you for posting the article! The best explanation I can come up with is to compare that toy with known examples of four-wheeled Scythian chariots, which do resemble modern vehicles to some degree. But it is strange nonetheless.
RW your reply is rather lengthy and covers a lot of territory so I may miss some points in response. If so I hope you know it is not a deliberate evasion but an oversight. I too have only limited time to spend online and sometimes miss things of importance.
RWLJ wrote
Hello oroblanco,
You might want to recognize that Plato had information on Atlantis that he himself did not understand to well. The very fact that he ended his writing on Atlantis where he did, states a lot. He may have himself started to recognize the bigger picture. If he would have written anymore he may have recognized that he would have been putting his foot in his own mouth.
Or it may be that the remainder of Plato's text simply got lost over the centuries. We can not know for sure. I can't agree that Plato had information that he failed to understand well; nothing in his writings leads me to think that he did not fully grasp what he wrote of.
RWLJ also wrote
I would suggest that you study some of the maps in the book The Friar’s Map of Ancient America, 1369 AD, by Gunnar Thompson.
Even National Geographic published a map showing different maps of what they thought was the Mediterranean. The last map that they showed, of what they thought was the Mediterranean was the newest of all the maps. It did not fit the Mediterranean as much as the other maps. It showed Jerusalem in the center of it. The book The Friar’s Map shows similar maps. If this was a map of what we call the Mediterranean today and what is called Jerusalem today, it would indicate that map drawers were inferior to their predecessors and that they became less informed or lost the ability to draw what we call the Mediterranean today. That map fits Solomon’s Jerusalem where the first Jericho still exists. The Friar’s Map also shows older maps of first Asia, Africa and Europe. Not the copycat places that are known about today.
Thank you for the book suggestion, however there is a fairly good 'chain of custory' to use the legalese term, that the places which most people identify as the Holy Land, Solomon's Temple, rebuilt on the same spot several times over the centuries, with the last reconstruction being erected by the infamous king Herod, on Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Palestine. If we try to point anywhere else as the "real" site of these biblical places, then we would have to also have an explanation for what we can see in Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. If they are not truly the Holy Land, then what are they?
RWLJ also wrote
When Plato was talking about Atlantis being bigger than Asia and Africa combined, what Asia and what Africa was he talking about? Did he know much more about what he was talking about then the people that think that they have the walls or ruins of Solomon’s Temple in the Middle East? Recently they have dug up coins under that wall and other things that show that the wall did not exist in the days of Christ. The coins were made to represented Caesars or Emperors of a later date. Christ said there would not be one stone left upon another. Scholars and archaeologists have looked for it for year and have yet to find a trace of Solomon’s Temple. If they did it would have had to be carried from here to over there.
It appears that you have not compared the Greek text of Plato with this modern idea of Atlantis as a "continent". His sentence where Atlantis is "bigger" is really saying "megos"
which means "greater", not "bigger". A country can be greater than another without being bigger. Otherwise we must start calling Alexander the Great, Alexander the Bigger. But your point about the Africa and Asia as referred to by Plato, yes the Greeks had a very erroneous idea of how large either continent was, in fact most Greeks of Plato's time believed Europe was larger than either Asia or Africa, a false idea the Greeks only became aware of during Alexander's time (on how huge Asia truly is) or Ptolemy, for the immensity of Africa.
Plato never says Atlantis was a continent.
RWLJ also wrote
You may fool or influence those that want to remain in the dark ages but you have no walls or ruins over there that tie in with Solomon’s Temple. You might have other things that he built when he was over there during his three years of travel.
I am not trying to "fool" anyone on anything. If you wish to cite Solomon's temple anywhere other than Jerusalem, then what ARE those ruins, and how do we explain the long record clearly tied to the Middle East?
RWLJ also wrote
I have seen many things that will bring about the rewriting of history. I know what I have seen to be real. Homer’s writings are real clear. It matches the Aztecs and the other histories and what I have personally seen for years at the site. He writes that Troy was on the lower part of Mount Olympus and that all of its foundations were dug up.
I have to respectfully disagree on how clear the poetry of Homer is; many statements in his Iliad and Odyssey are open to interpretation. One point however is pretty clear, that
the mountain which is located so close to Troy was not called Olympus but mount Ida.
RWLJ also wrote
Just because someone was not smart enough and they thought that they had found Troy with its foundations in tacked in Turkey, does not mean it is there. They are trying to make what Alexander called new Troy a rebuilt first Troy. This is not according to the facts of history. It is very unlikely that someone rebuilt a city and call in New Troy. It would be about as foolish as to look for Old York under New York. It also contradicts Homer and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
It took Odysseus ten years to get back home. Their war was not fought across the channel between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.
I take it that you completely dismiss the work of Heinrich Schleimann, and the subsequent work done by many others, at the site in Turkey which fits Homer's description of Troy so well.
If that is not Troy, then what is it?
RWLJ also wrote
You made a big deal in the past that Atlantis was not a continent. How much do you know that Plato knew? He may have been as mistaken in his interpretations about Atlantis, as you are about your interpretations of the whereabouts of the land of Joshua’s conquest. I can speak boldly with authority because I have seen many things that are for real that the world does not know about.
I made the point about Atlantis not being a continent because Plato never said it was -
in fact he described it as a large ISLAND, with a plain only some 200 x 300 miles, and the total area of the island not even as large as Madagascar. Would you call Madagascar a continent? The statement he made about Atlantis being "greater" was in reference to their power, wealth and influence, clearly, hence their wars of conquest. You seem to dismiss the Old Testament account of Joshua out of hand, in which case then I must ask how do you explain the clear and complete description given in which tells us the route taken by the ancient Hebrews from Egypt, which term I use for modern familiarity rather than the Biblical Mizraim, which may not be familiar to some of our readers. Do you dismiss the description of the route as described? For our readers, here is a summation with sources at the end of each point:
"In the third month after the sons of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that very day they came into the wilderness of Sinai. When they set out from Rephidim, they came to the wilderness of Sinai and camped in the wilderness; and there Israel camped in front of the mountain." Exodus 19:1-2
"They journeyed from Rephidim and camped in the wilderness of Sinai. They journeyed from the wilderness of Sinai and camped at Kibroth-hattaavah." Numbers 33:15-16
"which the Lord commanded Moses at Mount Sinai in the day that He commanded the sons of Israel to present their offerings to the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai." Leviticus 7:38
"Then the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying," Numbers 1:1
"just as the Lord had commanded Moses. So he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai." Numbers 1:19
"But Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord when they offered strange fire before the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai; and they had no children. So Eleazar and Ithamar served as priests in the lifetime of their father Aaron." Numbers 3:4
"Then the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying," Numbers 3:14
" Thus the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying," Numbers 9:1
"They observed the Passover in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight, in the wilderness of Sinai; according to all that the Lord had commanded Moses, so the sons of Israel did." Numbers 9:5
"and the sons of Israel set out on their journeys from the wilderness of Sinai. Then the cloud settled down in the wilderness of Paran." Numbers 10:12
"But among these there was not a man of those who were numbered by Moses and Aaron the priest, who numbered the sons of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai." Numbers 26:64
<Borrowed from
The Exodus Route: Wilderness of Sinai which is essentially correct>
RWLJ also wrote
When can you show me the Troy on Mount Olympus? If you cannot show me first Troy on the first Mount Olympus, then you should be open minded so someone can show you the land of first Mount Olympus and first Troy. On second Troy you would not be able to show me any of the original gods and what they originally were.
Troy was not located on Mt Olympus,
it was located at the foot of Mount Ida. Troy was destroyed and rebuilt several times over its history, seven times or more. The location was highly important strategically and as a trade route crossroads, which explains why it was not simply re-located elsewhere. As to the "original" gods, and what they really were, the evidence points to many of them being not gods at all originally but heroes and heroines of very human form, whom were accorded the honors of being a god after their deaths, as with Herakles, Ouranos, Ra, Isis, Horus and many others.
RWLJ also wrote
I could ask you hundreds of questions that you would not be able to answer in your own right. I have seen many people that can grab onto wild assumptions that hold water like a sieve.
I have no doubt
there are a great many questions that I certainly do not know the answers to - I do not pretend to know it all about anything. I can agree that there are people whom will seize onto fantastical ideas and hold great faith in them with little reasoning or logic, and in cases like that it is almost pointless to try to reason with such persons.
RWLJ also wrote
The continent of Atlantis is bigger than Asia and Africa combined and that goes for both new Asia and Africa and old Asia and Africa. Asia means a she ass and Africa means the shadow of God. The continent of Atlantis is not to be confused with the island of Atlantis. The continent of Atlantis is America. The island of Atlantis is in the middle sea of the Ta land (Utah) the first Mediterranean, also known as the Atlantean sea or the sea of the right hand of God. It is called Lake Bonneville today. Maybe Plato was not able to give you history straighter because he did not known any better, like people today do not know much about real history. We have never fully come out of the Dark Ages of the uninformed leading the uninformed.
Plato wrote that Atlantis was "greater" than Asia and Africa combined, not larger then them. It is a very different meaning. If you compare what Plato wrote with the other ancient sources, it becomes clear that Atlantis was a large island with several other outlying islands in a group, seven to ten islands in all. If you say that America is where Atlantis was, then what about the rest of what Plato wrote, that from Atlantis you could sail on away from Europe to cross the ocean, and find a "true continent" that "rims the whole of the western ocean" which describes the Americas very well indeed. If America was Atlantis, then what "true continent" laid beyond it, that rimmed the entire ocean to the west? It simply won't work amigo.
RWLJ also wrote
White men did not understand the greater meaning when the Aztecs said that they came from the land of the rising sun. The white men interpreted it to mean east. His interpretation of that to mean east, is a confession of his own ignorance.
I suggest you re-read Cortez's account of his meeting with king Montezuma, if memory serves, it is in the letters to the king of Spain and available online. There was good reason why the Aztecs were SO shaken up by the appearance of the Spaniards on the Atlantic coast of Mexico.
RWLJ also wrote
Christ spoke in parables so the lesser would understand the lesser. The Aztecs would not have been excited about the Spanish understanding the original meanings, for obvious reasons.
The arrival of the Spanish coincided with an Aztec prophecy about the return of one of their most important gods, and in some senses that prophecy came true, as the practice of human sacrifice ended for example. Very little of the Aztec records survived the conquest.
RWLJ also wrote
John D. Lee, the so called Jacob Waltz who had worked and learned about Indian ways, pointed out and gave the people a true reflection of a place and many things that reflected the real place. He left a real parable in a manner that reflected some Indian ways. People colonized what we call the old world today. To these ancient colonizers the old world of today was their new world. They named things there after their Motherland and gave names to places that reflected the original places that they came from in one way or another.
The real Jacob Waltz can be well documented, and I have seen nothing to connect John D. Lee with Jacob Waltz of Phoenix, which is the one known as the Dutchman with the famous lost mine. As to the peoples of the Old World "colonizing" the New world, there is little record of this; Carthage attempted to plant one colony which was later withdrawn, the stories of prince Madog or Madoc the Welshman may be true, in which case the colonists vanished into the wilderness of America, Plutarch mentioned that "some Greeks" were living in America in his time, in the gulf of St Lawrence region, but did not explain if they were living as Greeks or if they had become "Indianized" by their intermarriages with Amerindians, at any rate they were probably just fishermen not building stone temples and cities. Even the lost Ten Tribes, which many have tried to link to various Amerindian tribes, are more likely to be found in Asia, Africa and Europe than in the Americas, but I won't say it is impossible either. As far as I know, there is no evidence of any large colonizing done by people from the Old World.
RWLJ also wrote
Oroblanco wrote
Jesus said, “Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you. For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest.” (Thomas gospel, 5)
That is a very good quote. I could show you many things that are within our sight today. I have posted some. There are many things within our sight that we could look at that leads to far greater things that are plain and self-evident. These things are for the honest and pure in heart that can come out of Babylon and its churches that have prostituted themselves. Too many are grabbing onto any wild assumption that comes along to support the false base they got from Babylon.
You make some wild assumptions about the Pharaoh at the time that Moses left the land of the Mizraims being Amosis. Neither Moses or the Israelites as a nation where ever in Egypt, over there at that time. Nor is it mentioned in the Old Testament of the Israelites ever seeing the great structures that are in Egypt. Moses led the children out of the land of Mizraim. Mizraim is in the western United States.
I must respectfully disagree, it is hardly a "wild assumption" that the actual Pharaoh of the Exodus being Amosis and not Rameses, and I am hardly the only person to reach that conclusion. I would suggest you research the matter. I would also point out that evidence linked to Hebrews in Egypt is being found, just that it does not make the evening news.
RWLJ also wrote
I am not going to touch on every little straw that you are holding onto to support your Babylonian premise. I can personally show you the travels of the Israelites and where their exodus came to a stop. There is much of their hand writing still there on the rocks.
You mention Biblical Archaeology Review. You need to read July/August 1996 vol. 22 #4 starting with page thirty. It makes it really clear that Joshua’s conquest did not take place in the Middle East. On page thirty six it shows a picture of a Merneptah Stele. Pharaoh Merneptah stated that Israel was laid waste. The Egyptians thought it was good that Israel had been laid waste by the Greeks. They may have even allied with the Greeks in bringing down Troy, the Israelite capital at the time. They were likely not to happy when the Israelites conquered their Motherland, the land of the Mizraims. There are many things in Biblical Archeology Review that discredits the conquest of Joshua having ever happened in the Middle East.
I would also suggest that you read The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.
I have not read every single article published by the Biblical Archaeologica Review, nor would I agree with every single article. The reason I suggested it to you was that they have published some of the very interesting and recent findings in the Holy Land and Middle East, which confirm that the Old Testament history is true. Thank you for the book suggestion. More on Joshua and the conquest below.
RWLJ wrote
I do not know of one biblical archaeologist scholars, people of true scientist that supports a Joshua conquest in the Middle East.
While a good many in academia DO view the Old Testament, and New for that matter as a "collection of Hebrew fairy tales" as one pseudo-scholar put it, do you suppose that I am alone and made the statements just from my own findings? I could hardly take such credit. I will point you to one example:
In a word, in all material details and in date the fall of Jericho took place as described in the Biblical narrative. Our demonstration is limited, however, to material observations: the walls fell, shaken apparently by earthquake, and the city was destroyed by fire, about 1400 B.C. These are the basic facts resulting from our investigations. The link with Joshua and the Israelites is only circumstantial but it seems to be solid and without a flaw."10
<from
https://www.biblearchaeology.org/po...-new-look-at-the-archaeological-evidence.aspx>
RWLJ also wrote
In reply to my Jericho post, you talk about some volcano by the name of Thera, Santorini erupting. I examined this story some time ago and recognized that they have come up with a little reality about volcanic activity during the time of Moses. Beyond that I could not give it much creditability it was based on assumptions upon assumptions. True Mount Sinai was a volcano that created a cloud by day and a fire by night. Moses set up boundaries lest the fire break out and kill them. He kept the people away from it until it blew its trumpet really hard. When you get into the real land of Joshua you find that real biblical history fits really well.
You try to identify the Hyk-sos that over ran Egypt as if they were the true Israelites. I have heard this story before and it does not carry any legitimate weight. First place there were seventy Israelites that went down into the land of Mizraim not Egypt. Egypt is an alteration of the Old Testament text. The Ten Commandments in stone in Los Lunas, New Mexico says they were lead out of the land of Mizraim. While Joseph ruled under a Pharaoh the Israelites never dominated the Motherland of Mizraim. However it is highly likely that when the Mizraim army went down in the red sea or the sea of Eden here in Utah that it opened the doors for the Hyk-sos to take that land when the Mizraim army fell in this land.
Again, I am hardly the first person to reach the conclusion that the Hyksos people recorded by the Egyptians, are one and the same with the Hebrews, in fact one inscription even calls the Hyksos by an alternate name - israel. It would be false if I tried to claim the credit. Simcha Jacobovici presented the case very well, which was made into a television documentary titled The Exodus Decoded. If you dismiss this in favor of Utah, then how do we explain the Egyptian records, not to mention the many other sources from antiquity? Who or whom do you say, was living in Palestine, circa 1000 BC, if not the Hebrews and Philistines and what ever Canaanites remained? By the way, Mizraim was Egypt. I am sorry but I can not agree with your theory so far. To further support that the pharaoh was indeed Amosis, here is a quote
FROM PTOLEMAEUS MENDESIUS.
"
Amosis, who lived about the same time with Inachus the Argive (i.e., the king of Argos), overthrew the city of Avaris, as Ptolemaeus Mendesius has related in his chronicle."―Extracted from the Stromata of Clemens, Bishop of Alexandria, quoted by Eusebius, Praep. Evang., Book x.
As you know, Avaris was the capital city of the Hyksos in Egypt, and I would point out that many online sites spell Amosis as Ahmose.
FROM DIODORUS SICULUS.
"
There having arisen in former days a pestiferous disease in Egypt, the multitude attributed the cause of the evil to the Deity; for a very great concourse of foreigners of every nation then dwelt in Egypt, who were addicted to strange rites in their worship and sacrifices; so that, in consequence, the due honours of the gods fell into disuse. Whence the native inhabitants of the land inferred, that unless they removed them, there would never be an end of their distresses. They immediately, therefore, expelled these foreigners; the most illustrious and able of whom passed over in a body, (as some say), into Greece, and other places, under the conduct of celebrated leaders, of whom the most renowned were Danaus, and Cadmus. But a large body of the people went forth into the country which is now called Judea, situated not far distant from Egypt, being altogether desert in those times. The leader of this colony was Moses, a man very remarkable for his great wisdom and valour. When he had taken possession of the land, among other cities, he founded that which is called Jerusalem, which is now the most celebrated."―Extracted from Book xl. Ecl. i, p. 921.
That version is very much what we might expect it to be, as seen from the Egyptian perspective concerning the Hebrews and their exodus.
RWLJ also wrote
Oroblanco, I am sorry but I have one advantage over you. I have history that did not come through the nations that made up the image of Babylon. It is untainted by Babylon. We have carved writing that is dated to be five thousand years old. I have seen Exodus stories, one that was black with desert varnish that is older than anything that ties with Hebrew writing in the Middle East. That story is written right where the Exodus story came to an end under Joshua.
I would point out to you that our history was hardly "tainted" by Babylon, when the writing system used by the Chaldaeans, Assyrians, Hittites and others were not even able to be read until fairly recent times (in the last two centuries great progress was made in deciphering the ancient cuneiform writing system) or if you mean Rome as "Babylon" it is good to keep in mind that Rome did not write ancient history and could not control ALL historians even in the darkest of Dark Ages.
RWLJ also wrote
How are you going to look and what are you going to say when you have to confront the records in the library that is in the area of the Tree of Life? Even Adam in his day was not allowed to partake of in his day.
While I am like many people in that I don't like to look the fool, I also have NO problems in admitting when I am wrong, nor am I incapable of changing my mind, when the evidence provides reason enough. I would ask
where it says there is a "library" in the area of the "Tree of Life" however, from all I can recall there is no mention of any library in the garden of Eden? Thank you in advance.
RWLJ wrote
On the Molina Map it marks that place of the Temple and say ancient library in Spanish. They are looking for that place in the Grand Canyon. Those that want to believe in what came through Babylon can keep on looking there. Those that want to believe it is in the Superstitious Mountains should keep on looking there. That goes for the Tucson area or West Texas or those that are looking for Solomon’s Mines which were once called the Tayopa Mines in northern Mexico. Likewise they should keep on looking where they think they are at. They have a right to waste their own money and time.
Most historians dismiss the Molina documents as forgeries; even if authentic, by the information it contains, it applies to a Spanish mission in the American southwest and several mines associated with the mission, not what you have inferred. A side point here but the Dutchman mine is alleged to be in the Superstition mountains, not the Superstitious mountains which is memory serves are located in California, not a major point however. You are the first person I know of to associate king Solomon's mines with Tayopa however.
RWLJ also wrote
You once tried to correct me when I referred to a place that was called the heart. You corrected me and said it meant white. I told you that I already knew that that was its first meaning. There have already been two men that have posted on this site that I told the first meaning of its name before I ever met you.
There are many people that are a witness to a bigger story of things, then what I have shown on this site. If anyone is really seeking truth then they should search all new things and not make assumption based on Babylonian confusion.
I do not recall the incident/correction you refer to, however if it was offensive then my apologies as no offense was intended.
RWLJ also wrote
I will not always have time to speedily answer every question out there. People should recognize it is not always wise to judge new things by their old paradigm. In general people are in a channel or chain of believes that appear more logical to them. There are just a few that have the strength to reexamine and give up all their established premises. If we are going to win, we have to examine all of our foundations or premises that we have built on with the new evidence of things and let the cream or the truth rise to the top.
We all have our education as our foundation to our thinking, to ignore it completely is not possible for most people. It would take very strong evidence that this foundation was thoroughly wrong, and I for one have not seen such strong evidence. On a few points, like the Isolation theory, yes our historical teachings are deeply flawed, but even in this issue some progress is being made to correct the record. I do not expect you or anyone to rush to answer me, and hope for the same consideration in return, for I too have limited time to be on the internet.
RWLJ also wrote
I have noticed in many debates that the ones that have the weaker platform start throwing in any kind of flak to avoid the truth. They also throw flak because they did not want to hear the other side or they do it to throw their opposition off by overwhelming him with a lot of flak.
Even when we have facts on our side it is comforting to see testimonies that support our premise. We need to not feel bad when we lose. The truth is more important than any one person or their ego. I would rather lose and gain the truth then win with falsehoods and destroy my future. So one again look at the greater knowledge of new discoveries, they can prevent us from being wrong or making fools of ourselves. Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.
I myself at least in times past was more interested in being a live coward then a dead hero. This is my way of showing a smile face.
I invite you all to look before you jump out on a limb. The new discoveries will bring about a marvelous work and a wonder, as it says in Isiah 29. In part the fulfillment of where you quote Jesus.
I have not been "throwing out flak" but attempting to point out several problems with your theory and approach. New discoveries are made every day, most of which tend to reinforce the story of our history.
RWLJ also wrote
Let us all take our time and build on a sure foundation. Let us be slow to judge all things without first looking at all things.
Why would people rush to judgments when they know little or nothing about new great discoveries? Only a poor or corrupt judge would judge a situation without looking at both sides of the story. We have a lot more history and facts here then they have in the Middle East and it is much older. The challenge is to investigate. Again condemnation without investigation is ignorance on the war path.
R. W.
You seem to think that we are "rushing to judgement" about your theories, which is hardly the case. You have presented it in some detail, and for some of us at least, there are problems which I cannot reconcile. For example, if Atlantis were really located in Lake Bonneville,
then where was the Athens which fought a war with them? And more - if truly Atlantis were in Lake Bonneville, most of it would be dry land today, and should be fairly easy to start finding the ruins. What about Plato, Plutarch, Strabo and the other ancient sources we have on Atlantis - if it really occurred in Utah, then how on Earth did the Egyptians learn of it to tell the story to Solon? What about Plato's description of the location of Atlantis, that there was a huge continent located west of it rimming the whole of the ocean - if Atlantis were in Utah region, what farther continent could there be to rim the whole of the ocean? To me, these are insurmountable problems which cannot be resolved by mere debate, we need to have solid evidence to fill in all the gaps or at least, some good explanations.
I have not condemned your theories nor you, in fact I have been trying to be respectful, just that I can not agree with your theories on Atlantis, the Patriarchs, the Holy land and several other aspects. I fear that we will not get anywhere in our discussion for we are
poles apart, however thank you for your time and for the debate, it has been most interesting.
Good luck and good hunting to you Wes, I hope you find the treasures that you seek, and that goes for all whom are reading this.
Roy ~ Oroblanco
have the king Solomon's mines . The Tayopa mines were in the possession of many kings over the centuries and maybe the milleniums .
