This is a very long and somewhat off-topic reply, which is apt to disappear in future so I must beg your indulgence. Thank you in advance.
Springfield wrote
Of course you are. Please explain your opinion.
As I am sure that my own views hold no weight for you (and the public at large) here are a few of the points;
The Los Lunas Decalogue is an abridged version of the 10 Commandments.
It would be a fair assumption these visitors possessed a precision knowledge of astronomy and with this knowledge keen awareness of navigational direction. The Phoenicians possessed this level of navigational astronomy.
If one goes to any search engine and types in TANIT SYMBOL Tanit was the goddess of Baal, a very familiar nature religion indigenous to the Canaan area. Tanit has also been called Astarte. The symbol for this goddess is found throughout the Old World; particularly, in Carthage; a Phoenician colony in North Africa.
Minus the three or four letters that have broken off, and minus the period separation points and the caret, there are 216 characters inscribed on the stone. All 22 letters of a Semitic/Phoenician/Paleo-Hebrew alephbet are employed.
The overwhelming number of Phoenician and Greek letters and words found in Los Lunas are more of a direct link to Old World (Bronze Age) employ
The last group of script-letters are; what I call, the curvey ones (for lack of any academic ones). These are the letters “Beyt (B or V), “Ayin” (without a vowel it is soundless), and the letter “Resh” (R). All are consistently Phoenician in origin.
Almost all linguistic translators of the Decalogue stone agree that Phoenician Script has a strong foundation. The important point to learn here is that the letters used in Los Lunas are not homogeneous! The scripts on this stone tell of many scripts from many ports of call.
All of this is borrowed from an online article which supports the stones being 10 Commandments, but the salient points are among my own reservations.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/15_williamson.html
Ancient Hebrew like Phoenician being basically a consonant alphabet can often be read in more than one way; this is true on the Los Lunas dekalogue as well. The evidence of "other ports of call" also supports a Phoenician source, for they called at all the ports of the then-known world in their trading and exploration voyages. Hebrew inscriptions do show a tendency to adopt Greek letters after a period of time, and later still Roman, so this by itself does not rule out Hebrew origin.
Notably two translators rejected the idea that the rock inscription had something to do with the Ten Commandments. In 1964, Robert L. LaFollete wrote a translation which resulted in a travelers story carved on the rock using Phoenician as well as some Hebrew, Cyrillic and Etruscan letters. LaFollete translated this story in English as well as in the Navajo language. Dixie L. Perkins published another translation in 1979. This time under the assumption that the writer was of Greek origin and that he was using old-Greek and Phoenician letters. Perkins translation, too, challenges the Ten Commandment version, again resulting in another travelers story. (1) However, Mrs Perkins stated in her foreword to her translation that she only studied Latin and Greek, not however Hebrew.
Check out the diagram on this page and you can see another issue I have with the Ten Commandments theory;
http://www.mhccorp.com/archaeology/decalogue-translation.html
To translate it as a version of the Ten Commandments, you have to use a garbled form of reading it; I have never found any 10 Commandment inscription which follows this construction and it is illogical as well as unusual. While it is not impossible for this to be the correct translation (obviously) I remain un-convinced that it is correct, and support the alternate theory which is that it is a Phoenician inscription, with a very different text. The first red flag (for me) was that it is written in eight lines of script, which is inconsistent with at least modern concepts of how the 10 Commandments should appear. I do plan to visit the site in person before making any absolute conclusions, which unfortunately cannot be on our next trip.
Somehiker wrote
Beth:
Think you've missed the difference between his early 7 AM post and much later 8 PM post.
Not to answer for Beth, but BB had posts here on T-net at least up to 2:25 pm, which have since been removed; there was a time gap of at most five hours, which is plenty of time to drive 78 miles and break down more than once, struggle to repair and get running, and drive home. I am sure that she did not mean that he did not have a horrible day, we have had plenty of similar days but rarely have been lucky enough to be able to get home in five or six hours time. For us it usually is a whole day, and sometimes more than one day "adventure" when breakdowns occur, and never have had a backup vehicle attached to a tow bar. I do not know why those posts up to 2:30 pm were removed, I don't think anyone doubted the RV broke down on him. Oops now I see that she already answered, but I know I read a post from BB at just before 2:30 pm.
Don Jose, Dueno de Real de Tayopa wrote
Oro knows far more than I on this.
I doubt that statement, and unfortunately Plato was not very specific about exactly how much land area disappeared beneath the seas. Plato's two works describing Atlantis are both online (free) for anyone wishing to get specific;
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/critias.html
Much information in circulation today is of modern origins, but there are other ancient sources; however it is notable that Plutarch accused Plato of embellishing the story of Atlantis in his "Life of Solon"; other ancient sources are much more bare-bones, yet I suspect are closer to the truth.
Sorry for the long-winded reply, I hope you are all having a very pleasant day; will pop in later this evening.
Oroblanco
