|
Post by stepnwolf on May 28, 2013 23:50:33 GMT 9.5
Sun in Latin = Sol or Solus Sun in Sanskrit = Aum or OmSun in Ethiopic = OnSOL-OM-ON LorrB, you've confused me again but have also given me a chance to enjoy my favorite past time of linguistics. As I understand it, the usual Sanskrit word for sun is सूर्य sūrya, "the Supreme Light," which is also used to refer to the sun. While the sacred syllable, written ओं for Om and औं for Aum, has no reference to the Sun. If by Ethiopic you mean the language of Ethiopia, then the language is Amharic, belonging to the Semitic group of languages. ፀሐይ (/TS'ähäy/ ) is the word for sun. It would seem that the source you quoted has indulged in some very fanciful scholarship. Besides that, the Hebrew for Solomon is שְׁלֹמֹה pronounced Shlomo, the -on ending probably coming from the Greek. I don't see how that name could be associated with the construction in your post. You may have better luck with the names of the three ruffians!
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 29, 2013 7:46:33 GMT 9.5
I have had the same conversation with Lorraine several times but she really does like deconstructing English representations of Jewish words into syllables from yet more languages.
Better perhaps to wonder if the historically absent Solomon is actually a representation of Suleiman the Magnificent in which case KST still exists.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 29, 2013 8:10:39 GMT 9.5
I believe everything I read That particular deconstruct was by a different author... who probably read the first author. Re: Sulieman the Magnificent... Suleiman I /ˌsʊlɪˈmɑːn/; known as “the Magnificent” in the West and “Kanuni” in the East, (6 November 1494 – 5 September 1566) was the tenth and longest-reigning Emperor, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, from 1520 to his death in 1566. Q... How can someone who lived 1520 to 1566 be referred to in the much older book, the Bible? Althought it made me smile broadly to read "In a break with Ottoman tradition, Suleiman married a harem girl, (also known as Roxelana) who became Hürrem Sultan Hiram/Hurrem/Harem Shock/Horror. ;D
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 29, 2013 8:12:40 GMT 9.5
You may have better luck with the names of the three ruffians! Our Lauderdale Ritual openly suggests what you are alluding to.
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 29, 2013 8:17:41 GMT 9.5
>Our Lauderdale Ritual openly suggests what you are alluding to.
Since the Aum is not Jewish, that may be an addition to Masonry that occurred after the British arrived in India.
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 29, 2013 8:29:26 GMT 9.5
Q... How can someone who lived 1520 to 1566 be referred to in the much older book, the Bible? That rather depends on how old the Bible is. I recently discovered that the Rose of Sharon in the Song of Solomon only appeared in the Bible in about 1605 with the King James version. And as we recall Newton, Freud and Velikovski all thought that the Bible has real problems with dating. For a massive exercise in redating based on mathematical patterns try Fomenko - 7 very large volumes " so-called consensual history is a finely woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events preceding the sixteenth century. There is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artifact that can be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the sixteenth century." books.google.com.au/books/about/History.html?id=fSvlaZYbcwUC&redir_esc=y
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 29, 2013 9:03:50 GMT 9.5
For stepnwof... Etymology
The Latin sol for "Sun" is the continuation of the PIE heteroclitic *Seh2ul- / *Sh2-en-, cognate to Germanic Sol, Sanskrit Surya, Greek Helios, Lithuanian Saulë.[1] also compare Latin "solis" to Etruscan "usil". Today, "sol" is still the main word for sun in romance languages. "Sol" is used in contemporary English by astronomers and science fiction authors as the proper name of the Sun to distinguish it from other stars which may have their own planetary systems. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_(mythology)
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 29, 2013 9:27:53 GMT 9.5
That rather depends on how old the Bible is. The oldest Bible versions available to us today are millennia old. The Masoretic Text, written in Hebrew, became the standard authorized Hebrew text around 100 AD. It existed prior to the writings of the New Testament, confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls as early as 168 B.C., and was used as the official Hebrew Old Testament at the time the biblical canon was established.
www.allabouttruth.org/oldest-bible-version-faq.htm
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 29, 2013 9:52:41 GMT 9.5
> confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls as early as 168 B.C. I have read that carbon dating labs will not take work unless an indicative date is provided. Further, I understand that dating in European and Mediterranean history is anchored to Roman history. But what if Roman history suffers from the "ages in chaos" allegation of Velikovksy? "The fundamental problem encountered by historians in 16th and 17th centuries working on reconstruction of the global history of mankind was putting together in chronological order all of the manuscripts, chronicles and other historical documents to obtain a unified and consistent account of all historical events. This was an extremely difficult problem for that time. The main obstacle was that most of the manuscripts were not dated, or used an unknown or archaic system of dating, and contained only a description of a sequence of successive events. It should be stressed out that the most of historical documents that we have today, related to ancient and medieval times, are not original but only copies made some time ago, often under suspicious circumstances." www.revisedhistory.org/investigation-historical-dating.htmPerhaps Henry Ford was correct when he said: History is bunk
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 29, 2013 10:12:51 GMT 9.5
... wotif... Freemasonry is bunk
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 29, 2013 10:18:11 GMT 9.5
>wotif... Freemasonry is bunk
It is perhaps worth separating Freemasonry post 1717 from earlier forms of Freemasonry and from the practices of the ancient mysteries.
As Mackey tells us, the outer form is not the essence of Freemasonry. Thus the essence of Masonry may manifest itself within or without "regular" Masonry
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 29, 2013 11:12:44 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by heritage on Jun 1, 2013 10:01:39 GMT 9.5
It is perhaps worth separating Freemasonry post 1717 from earlier forms of Freemasonry and from the practices of the ancient mysteries. True. They are distinct. We should also bear-in-mind the form of Freemasonry to which we are heirs.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 1, 2013 10:20:05 GMT 9.5
>the form of Freemasonry to which we are heirs
Personally I am more interested in being heir to the spirit of Freemasonry. The current form leaves a lot to be desired.
|
|
|
Post by Wooo on Jun 1, 2013 10:28:29 GMT 9.5
>the form of Freemasonry to which we are heirs Personally I am more interested in being heir to the spirit of Freemasonry. A spirit without a body. Sounds like a ghost... Boo or rather Wooo. www.skepdic.com/ghosts.html
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 1, 2013 10:45:29 GMT 9.5
>A spirit without a body.
That is indeed a problem for many spiritual impulses - forming a body of manifestation.
On the other hand Blavatsky tells us that humans often have the other problem - a body without a spirit.
|
|
|
Post by Wooo on Jun 1, 2013 11:20:42 GMT 9.5
On the other hand Blavatsky tells us that humans often have the other problem - a body without a spirit. Let us deal with one problem at a time.
|
|