Re: has montezuma's tomb been found ...?
Greetings.,
Lamar wrote:
And when we refer to the original Bibical texts, we find the word "dragon" to be "δράκοντοϛ drakontos" in classical Greek. This is where the modern word "dragon" is derived. The word "crocodile is "κροκόδīλος" in classical Greek and we can readily see that the words for "dragon" and "crocodile" are vastly different in Greek. Also, in the classical Greek language, the word for crocodile existed side by side with the word dragon, therefore we can conclude that the Biblical writers were referring to two distinctly different creatures.
Also, in Latin the word for "dragon" is "extractum" and the word for "crocodile" is "crocodilus", therefore we may conclude that the authors did not commit an error during translation, my friend.
And so, in comparing the word dragon to crocodile in both classical Greek and classical Latin, we now find that the truth does not shine through quite as brightly as it did yesterday, now does it?
Thank you for proving my point, that it was a case of garbled translations in ancient times that left us with "dragons". For yes the Greek and Latin words for dragon are different from their word for dragon, so when the Septuagint was translated into Greek from the original Hebrew for for pharaoh Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285–246 BC, the translators found the Hebrew word "dragon" without realizing that their "dragon" was in fact a crocodile, they simply put in their own word for dragon. They were doing their best to get a literal translation and retain the intended meanings so I do not hold them at fault, it is us modern folks who fail to see that the terms dragon, behemoth, unicorn, leviathan etc are actually references to real animals that the Hebrews were not so familiar with but had SOME knowledge of. So we find that the truth shines even brighter than yesterday, since you pointed out the language difference barriers involved in translating the bible, illustrating directly where these "mythical" animals probably could have been correctly idenftified and the name substituted in the texts, but this was not done in view of Ptolemy's desire for as close to a literal translation as possible. Over the centuries, these names of animals becoming "myth" has even led some people to turn away from this particular religion, on the basis of - if it is supposed to be the Word of God, then why should we accept it when it has these obviously MYTHICAL creatures in it? For if that is pure fiction, then the book cannot be a book of truth since it has these fictional creatures, etc. (I am not one of these persons but am sure you have run into folks who use that line of reasoning to reject the Bible.)
Lamar also wrote:
Dear oroblanco;
Even your steadfast refusal to consider the validity of my theory has been pre-determined, based on your own particular DNA coding. In other words, upon reading about my theory, you had but a certain number of pre-determined responses available to you, and you randomly chose the one which you did. That you chose one PARTICULAR response over another is immaterial to the discussion and your wholehearted agreement to my theory would have been just as important as the response you chose, my friend.
Please bear in mind that chaos theory tells is that unpredictably occurs in predictable events and that predictability occurs in unpredictable events. Simply because you feel that you pondered many different factors before making your decision makes not the slightest bit of difference, my friend. Your brain randomly chose to reject my proposal, based on a pre-determined set of factors that are embedded in your DNA strand. Your refusal to accept my theory, even though the theory seems to hold true at all test points, is totally random and puts not the slightest bit of weight to the argument.
Your friend;
LAMAR
Perhaps you misunderstood what I posted, for I did not refuse to consider your theory nor completely reject it out of hand. It is quite obviously right IN PART, that part about being genetically inclined towards certain tendencies, and some scientists hold that "unreasonable" fears such as phobia of spiders, ladders, heights, water, snakes, cats, etc are more likely a genetically-inherent trait rather than something learned. However to carry this idea of genetic inheritance of very wide ranges of human traits, especially social attributes, even some physical attributes is not warranted by the evidence. Studies done by several universities have shown that environment and experiences have far more influence on how a person turns out than their genetic traits. It is an interesting theory, in my opinion worthy of publishing in a peer-reviewed publication. You might stir up a storm of controversy amongst academia, but they enjoy it and the end result usually furthers science, whether a new idea is proven or disproven.
Don Jose', the Man of La Mancha wrote:
HI desert moon luv: Dragons still exist. Look up Komodo Dragons.
Komodo dragons are formidable predators, since even one bite can be lethal. The bacteria that live in the dragon's saliva are so virulent that wounds often will not heal. Even if the victim gets away, it usually dies from infection in a few days. The dragon's reputation as a human eater is well deserved; it does not seem to fear humans and many attacks and deaths have been reported
This is the point I was trying to show to our amigo Lamar, that dragons are not mythical at all but real animals, I point to crocodiles in the case of the ancient Hebrews, but for east Asia the Komodo dragons are more likely the real "dragons" of their "mythology". Muchas gracias for pointing out yet another real dragon amigo, that is still very much alive and kicking. In fact the horrific toxic brew of infectious bacteria that thrive in the saliva of Komodo dragons, which results in terrible infections for any victim bitten, might be the origin of the story of dragons "breathing fire" for the infected bite would burn like heck for the victim, turning red quickly and swelling, exhibiting wound characteristics that might be mistaken for burns from some kind of flame or scalding.
Cactusjumper wrote:
One last thing about the Punic Coin Map:
Anyone who takes Mark McMenamin's photo of the coin and compares it to the drawing,
will have no trouble seeing that McMenamin took some liberties with his "map". I would say that a stretch of the imagination would be an understatement.
Joe Ribaudo
Just my opinion but I have not made a decision whether those strange marks found by McMenamin are a map, a blundered inscription in the exergue, or (as the ancient coin collectors group decided) simply the result of die inclusions. In each case there are problems, if a map it is far from perfect (however how accurate could it be in such a small space) and considering how Punic authorities reacted about geographic and navigational secrets it would not make sense (which might explain why the "map" was discontinued after only a few examples got into circulation, perhaps the engraver was told to STOP THAT or lose his hands etc) if it was a blundered inscription it is unique - we have examples of blundered inscriptions and none resemble this at all. If it is simply the result of die inclusions, the result should be incuse, not raised relief, as debris on the dies leaves small dents in the coin blank when it is struck. Many examples of die inclusions exist and a total of NONE of them have raised relief, all are incuse where the debris was on the die. (This happens with modern coins as well.) So I would say that I think it is more likely a map than a blundered inscription or die inclusion, especially when considered in conjunction with the other evidence of Punic visitors reaching the Americas and returning. I only mentioned it as a part of the whole, another example of the growing stack of evidence for contact in ancient times, it is not the main evidence of ancient contact by any measure and if proven absolutely to be just a blundered inscription or other explanation, it would have very little effect on the total amount of evidence. I might have included in the list the more mysterious Piri Reis maps, which show the correct coastline of part of Antarctica and America, (that is Antarctica without any ice!) - and point out that written on those maps the explanation of how they were drawn states that they were drawn from a set of 20 maps, including eight which were of very ancient Greek maps dating to the time of Alexander the great. I am pretty sure that most folks will agree that the Piri Reis maps ARE maps.
<Illustration comparing South America to the Piri Reis map>
Good luck and good hunting amigos, I hope you find the treasures that you seek.
Oroblanco
(lame-duck attempt at humor 
) Our friend Real de Tayopa has found one famous example, and we know of others such as more than 2000 small silver bars recovered from Tumacacori (years ago) along with documentary evidence. The Society of Jesus may well deny any ownership of any such treasures and/or mines, and be telling the truth at the same time – as the actual “legal” ownership of such treasures, mines, properties etc could be traced to the Catholic Church. So a Jesuit priest could stand in the entrance of a silver mine, holding stacks of silver bars, and not be lying to say he did not own any such silver or mine. However in common parlance or usage, we refer to them as “Jesuit” treasures, mines etc as the Indios who worked the mines were under the impression that the mines and treasures were actually owned by the padres. This does not “prove” that the Jesuit padres actually owned any of them. 
