Mysteries :  The Official forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister

Since I have demonstrated in other occasions, the common translations of the dialogues of the Timaios and the Kritias on Atlantis, present/display numerous errors of translation and bad interpretations. Between these serious errors of translation and interpretation they are also the affirmations of which Atlantis were "greater than reunited Libya and Asia". The correct translation of this fragment is, "the Island Atlantis Peninsula, at the same time, she was huger (powerful) that Libya or Asia". Let us see the arguments:

1. It confirms this rectification that I propose another Latin translation of this same passage. Translation made in the antiquity by Chalcidio, disciple of the same Academy of Plato, which is a guarantee of which it would work with original of the teacher the Plato. The translation of Chalcidio says:


"... The producing Island in quite greater degree (amount) was that Libya or Asia... "


"... The Atlantis Island was producing in a degree quite greater than Libya or Asia... "

Another equally valid translation of this passage would be:

"... The Island was powerful in quite greater degree than Libya or Asia... "

This translation done by Chalcidio, a disciple of the doctrines of Plato - who is also the oldest well-known Latin translation of the Timaios- demonstrates of unquestionable way that the translation: "the island of Atlantis was greater (in size) that together Libya and Asia", are absolutely erroneous.

The translation of Chalcidio on Isla-Peni'nsula de Atlantis like "greater" (in being able or fertility), are confirmed by other references to the same Atlantis Island made by other authors of the antiquity like for example, Quintus Septimius Florens, that says the following thing:

"...Memorat et Platon maiorem Asiae et Africae terram Atlantico mari creptam..."

Their translation are the following one:

"... It remembers Plato to a earth greater than Asia or Africa that was swallowed by the force by the Atlantic sea... "

The word, "MAIOR", "MAIOREM", were used to express, "which is more powerful", "more important", "older or old", depending on the context. Just as when we spoke of greater of the our brothers or greater one of our children, always we are talking about oldest, to the one of more age. If on the contrary, we talked about highest, to the greater one in size, usually we say greatest, in comparison with smallest. This happened exactly equal in the old Latin language. Where "the greatest" or "greater thing in size" was expressed with the comparative "MAGNUS". Whereas "greater" (qualitatively) or "the oldest or old thing" was expressed by means of word "MAIOR".

As well usually it says my teacher of anthropology, the famous paleopatólogo and forense doctor, Ercilio Vento: "if it walks by the tile roofs and maulla, without a doubt, it is a cat, although always there will be one that says that it is an elephant". And of that they see elephants by the tile roofs instead of a cats, very we are exceeded.

When talking about to the Atlantis, all the external references to Plato, always speak of "greater" (in Latin "maiorem", "major") in the sense of grandiosidad that is, "more powerful", "huger" or of "antiquity".

In any case, still supposing that all these sources were mistaken, and what they meant in fact are that, the Atlantis Island was "greater" in size, even so most of these sources always say:

"... Asiae et Libiae..."

"... Asia and (or) Libya... "

That is, that still accepting that the correct translation was, "greater" in size, still accepting this difficult and incredible translation, in any case, is clear that he would not be greater in size than "Libya and Asia", but that "Libya or Asia", since, "et", in Latin is used for "or" does not only "and". These Latin translations that use conjución "ET" (or), confirm as well the other meaning of the Greek word "kai", the one that besides to be used for "and", also were used for "or".

Therefore, if we suppose that the correct translation is the one that still interprets Greek voice "MEIZÔN" and comparative Latin voice "MAIOR" like "the greatest one than" - in the sense of size and not in the sense of "greatness", "power" or "antiquity" - accepting this, the evidences demonstrate that never it would be "greater than Libya and Asia", but "greater than Libya or Asia".

Libya and Asia, for old the Greeks and the Egyptians - we remember that the primary source seems to be Egyptian was not even the third part of the real size. The Egyptians are those that told history him to Solón. And a single solid test that does not exist nor the Egyptians knew the dimensions real of Libya nor of Asia. If the conception is reconstructed that would have the Egyptians of Libya and Asia, through their writings and of the archaeological tests, of course that Libya and Asia would be very small. Very many more than what we can imagine. Nor joining or reuniting to two, a size greater could be obtained than what had to be for Egyptian same Egypt.

To intention, the Greek word that would allow the translation Libya and Asia "reunited" or "meetings", not even exist in the text written in Greek, as it does not exist either in the Latin translations of the same one. Very it would be been thankful, if somebody finds some of the Greek words used to express "to reunite" or "to join" in the fragment of the Timaios that we have analyzed, and where supposedly it says that Atlantis were "greater than Libya and Asia reunited" or "meetings". If somebody finds it, I will take off the hat in front of him, and in public if it were necessary.

This simple fact would have to be enough to him to any person who in fact looks for the truth, without fanaticisms - it is where it is, it is as it is and it falls that falls -, to include/understand to what extent the most common translations of the dialogues of Plato badly are interpreted, distorted, manipulated, and until falseadas.

2. Other reason of great weight, that it forces to me to consider that the Island or Peninsula of Atlantis was not as great as erroneously thinks the majority, is that Plato at no "epeiros" moment uses the word that is, "continent", to talk about to her. It always uses the voice Nêsos that is translated, according to the context like "Island" or "Peninsula". All the places that the Greeks knew as Nêsos were islands small or Peninsulas like for example, the Peninsula of the Peloponesos; literally, "Pelopos-Nesos" that is, "Peninsula of Pelopos". Nor a single place known by the Greeks those times as "Nêsos" had a size that outside as great as to be confused with a continent. The Greeks knew very or what was an island or peninsula and what it was a continent or a great mass of mainland. As much the Greeks as the Egyptians had different words or to give to name to the islands or peninsulas and great or continental earth. He is but that clear that if the Egyptians told to Solón that Atlantis was an Island, he is because it was a small earth, since the Egyptian concept of an island was the one of a very small earth. The Egyptians as soon as they knew the islands nearest the opening of the Nile, and these Aegean islands are rather small or medium.

If in original history that the Egyptians were telling to Solón, data really existed that affirmed that Atlantis were a "immense earth", "greater than together or reunited Libya and Asia" (as they say the common and vulgar translations) is logical to think that the Egyptian priests would have said to him to Solón that Atlantis were a "Continent" or a "Earth or immense Country" that is, one "terra firmâ". Of no way, an Egyptian would say to him to Solón that Atlantis was an Island or Peninsula, if this outside "so immense one", because in the Egyptian mentality it could not fit, under any concept, the image of a as enormous as continent, as enormous Island as all together Libya and all Asia. For Egyptian the Islands they were isolated earth by waters of very small dimensions. This same one thought the Greeks. The Island or Peninsula greater than had to know was the Peloponesos, and the Islands greatest those of Sardinia and Sicily. And we cannot think about the possibility of an error (that in this case he would be very serious) because in the Greek language the used voices to denominate to the Islands or Peninsulas were totally different - in the writing and pronunciación- from the used ones to denominate to great or continental earth. The same it happened in the Egyptian language that had very different voices to denominate to the islands or peninsulas and the continents or territories of interior.

At no moment are used nor by error the Greek word "epeiro" (continent), to talk about to Atlantis. Atlantis were an Island (Nêsos), therefore, according to the tradition and the conceptions of the Egyptians and the Greeks, Atlantis had to be a rather small Island. Without a doubt some, of very modest dimensions. On the other hand, Kritias used to go commented those things that seemed incredible within the story, nevertheless, at no moment says nothing on the so large incréible of the Atlantis Island. Perhaps it is not more than rare that one is alarmed so much by the extension of the plain and the pit or channel that surrounded it, whereas it was never alarmed by the enormous size of the Atlantis Island? It is obvious that, the only way to explain that Greek of a those times - that the only great islands that would know would be like Kreta, Sardinia and Sicily has not been surprised before the size of the Atlantis Island and yes before the size of a pit or a plain, is that in the text it was not said by any part that "the Atlantis Island was greater than reunited or together Libya and Asia".

Without doubts, the correct translation must be the one that I defend, supported in original the Greek and Latin voices. In the norms and rules of the classic lexicography. And this translation: "the Atlantis Island was huger (in being able) that Libya or Asia" or "older than Libya or Asia", it explains porqué Kritias did not feel nor the minimum surprise before his dimensions; as it also explains the existing contradictions between his numbers and measures, where times it seems that the island can have measures next to the 3000 stages by 2000 stages, whereas other times it affirms, and in several occasions, that the Acropolis was in the center of the Island, existing from this to the coast of the sea only 50 stages. A fragment of the Kritias that speaks on the place where found the sagrada hill of Kleitos, says asi ':

"... not far from the sea, in a plain located in the center of the Island... "

That is that, if the sagrada hill, where later the Acropolis was elevated, were in a plain located in the center of the Atlantis Island, and this hill was near the sea, evidently the Atlantis Island could not be very great.

The last reason that forces to me to consider like more probable and scientific than the Atlantis Island-peninsula, were not more than a Peninsula or coastal region, are the fact - repeated also in two occasions in the Timaios and Kritias- of which the place where there was been the Island or Peninsula, still in the times of Solón or Kritias, was to very little depth with many bajiós or low that is, banks of low bottoms with stumbling blocks that made navigation by the place difficult. This could only on the brink of madness happen in a coastal region, very next the continental coast. I have demonstrated that leaving by the Columns of Hercules or Gibraltar by the part of Spain many kilometers of low bottoms exist that still nowadays are very dangerous for navigation. And several sources of the antiquity previous and later to Plato speak of these same low dangerous ones for navigation, almost with the same words that use Plato through Kritias.

As anyone will be able to verify, I have managed to reunite to many tests and solid evidences to argue my hypothesis. The problem is that very few are arranged to consider my evidences and my discoveries, since this would mean to leave all its beliefs on the Atlantis. It would mean to resign to many conceptions and valid and real conventions already adopted like. The main question by which my discoveries and theories on Atlantis popularly are not accepted does not have anything to do with science, but much with the belief. At heart it is not but that an ideological problem, nonscientist.

On the other hand, all these evidences - exposed for the first time for the World they demonstrate, once again, that the common sense much also depends on the level of acquired knowledge.

Warm and Respectful greetings of Georgeos Diaz-Montexano


"a list of the excessive declarations on the Atlantis would be an absolutely good document for the study of the human stupidity" (Franz Susemihl, 1856)


Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Atlantis in Cuba: The false 11 points of the theory of Andrew Collins. 16609 ScientificAtlantologist 29-Nov-02 19:50
Re: Atlantis in Cuba: The false 11 points of the theory of Andrew Collins. 177 trailmarker 30-Nov-02 20:28
Re: Atlantis in Cuba: The false 11 points of the theory of Andrew Collins. 137 R Avry Wilson 30-Nov-02 21:51
Re: Atlantis in Cuba: The false 11 points of the theory of Andrew Collins. 146 trailmarker 30-Nov-02 22:56
Re: Atlantis in Cuba: The false 11 points of the theory of Andrew Collins. 112 shivalinga 30-Nov-02 21:42
Re: Atlantis in Cuba: The false 11 points of the theory of Andrew Collins. 162 merfolk 01-Dec-02 06:41
Re: Atlantis in Cuba: The false 11 points of the theory of Andrew Collins. 186 GeorgeosDiazMontexano 09-Dec-02 23:32

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.