Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What's Hidden in the Vatican Library?


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 13 March 2008 - 05:00 PM

A mis spelling but a common one by the looks of it

As I used it, I meant bigoted conflict within a group. In this case Christianity.


Yes Michael:angel2:; I understood that. I know the word, its various spellings, and in the context you used it I had no disagreement with your meaning (which after all you presented as a subjective opinion), so I thought I'd interject a little humerus dialogue. :) To the Vatacombs Bat Boy! :)

Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 13 March 2008 - 07:58 PM

A mis spelling but a common one by the looks of it.


internecine - definition of internecine by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

As I used it, I meant bigoted conflict within a group. In this case Christianity.


What's funnier still, is that I see you referenced a dictionary I use regularly that doesn't have an entry for 'intercine'. Did you read the Word History note too. :) Part of the double-deep, i.e. commonly misspelled and misused. No doubt an intercine atmosphere continues in the Vatican over what writings to make public. :clue:

Word History: When is a mistake not a mistake? In language at least, the answer to this question is "When everyone adopts it," and on rare occasions, "When it's in the dictionary." The word internecine presents a case in point. Today, it usually has the meaning "relating to internal struggle," but in its first recorded use in English, in 1663, it meant "fought to the death." How it got from one sense to another is an interesting story in the history of English. The Latin source of the word, spelled both internecnus and internecvus, meant "fought to the death, murderous." It is a derivative of the verb necre, "to kill." The prefix inter- was here used not in the usual sense "between, mutual" but rather as an intensifier meaning "all the way, to the death." This piece of knowledge was unknown to Samuel Johnson, however, when he was working on his great dictionary in the 18th century. He included internecine in his dictionary but misunderstood the prefix and defined the word as "endeavoring mutual destruction." Johnson was not taken to task for this error. On the contrary, his dictionary was so popular and considered so authoritative that this error became widely adopted as correct usage. The error was further compounded when internecine acquired the sense "relating to internal struggle." This story thus illustrates how dictionaries are often viewed as providing norms and how the ultimate arbiter in language, even for the dictionary itself, is popular usage. ...



Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7797 posts

Posted 14 March 2008 - 01:13 AM

What's funnier still, is that I see you referenced a dictionary I use regularly that doesn't have an entry for 'intercine'. Did you read the Word History note too. :) Part of the double-deep, i.e. commonly misspelled and misused. No doubt an intercine atmosphere continues in the Vatican over what writings to make public. :clue:

No Ididn't read that.
My great lustin life is to have a COMPLETE Oxford dictionary. Everyting else pales by comparison.
60% ain't bad- (being sent to USA)
How many witch trials do you want to wade though?

Was Calvin, Cromwell,Zwingli et., al., as meticulous about their destruction of church art, property and books?
The protestant movement has just as many skeletons in the cupboard as the RCs.

Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 14 March 2008 - 12:50 PM

...How many witch trials do you want to wade though?

Was Calvin, Cromwell,Zwingli et., al., as meticulous about their destruction of church art, property and books?
The protestant movement has just as many skeletons in the cupboard as the RCs.


No argument there. :hihi: The Vatican Library is unique however, and I don't think if any Myan codices for example, were spirited out of Central America & taken to Rome, that Luther could have or would have taken them.

On the Nag Hamadi scrolls and their Gospel of Thomas; if the Vatican has a copy, do you think they would say so, or continue to hide it? :cup: :lol:

alexander

alexander

    Dedicated Smart-ass

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5722 posts

Posted 14 March 2008 - 02:16 PM

Uhhh Alex...Michael is a he

I am sorry, i really am, i constantly forget, because i one of my friends has an email address that is michaelangelica, because its a michael and angellica's email, but she's not with michael anymore, they split at the beginning of senior year, and yeah, so excuse me it's a typo based on my friends.... well used to be friends, haven't heard from her since HS...

Have you any proof of this?

which part of that post, and all of it, to some extent is historically accurate, well, i could not remember the exact amount of gospels that was submitted for the council to be put in the bible, so yeah, when turks were invading the "holy land" they were burning manuscripts, i thought it's a fairly well known historic fact, as to the church burning gospels, well, why do you think there are so few in existence now? I will start looking for where i found the info, and yeah, which part of that are you more interested in having references for?

Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7797 posts

Posted 15 March 2008 - 12:10 AM

No argument there. :shade: The Vatican Library is unique however, and I don't think if any Myan codices for example, were spirited out of Central America & taken to Rome, that Luther could have or would have taken them.

i don't see the point here
most mayan libraries were destroyed along with 95% of the population by the Spanish. i find it hard to forgive this too.
i do have a copy of the Bandianus manuscript which was written by a catholic monk who tried to preserve some of the American herbal tradition. This was from the Vatican library.

On the Nag Hamadi scrolls and their Gospel of Thomas; if the Vatican has a copy, do you think they would say so, or continue to hide it? :doh: :QuestionM

This is available on line in English. What is the problem?

My previous posts mentioned that over 60% of the Vatican library has been duplicated and available in the USA
What is the problem?

alexander
Fine it happens all the time, sometimes it is quite interesting. Angelica is the herb given to the world by Michael to cure its ills. just a dumb name.
Of course I was wearing a my sexy dress & underwear at the time which may have confused you?:)

I have no argument with the proposition that the Church historically repressed what it saw as "heretical" works in past centuries. Especially in the lead up to the reformation when if felt under attack (justifiably and deservedly? so). It is a hierarchical, monolithic organistion based on the structure of the Roman Legions, designed to enforce conformity. Just as our major multi-national corporations( army and government departments) have adopted such a structure for the same reasons.
I do have an argument with you if you feel there is a modern conspiracy in the RC Church to hide important historical documents more than 60-100 years old. (The WW2 ones might still upset many)
I just don't believe they feel threatened enough to do this any more.
I do think they have problems cataloguing and preserving their collection, like most ancient libraries.

Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 15 March 2008 - 12:27 AM

i don't see the point here
most mayan libraries were destroyed along with 95% of the population by the Spanish. i find it hard to forgive this too.
i do have a copy of the Bandianus manuscript which was written by a catholic monk who tried to preserve some of the American herbal tradition. This was from the Vatican library.

This is available on line in English. What is the problem?

My previous posts mentioned that over 60% of the Vatican library has been duplicated and available in the USA
What is the problem?


Mmmmm...I think that if someone wants to hide something, Vatican librarian or not, they will. And if a person does hide something to keep it from others for whatever reason, then they don't say they are hiding something, they lie and obfuscate. Obviously, the Vatican isn't going to let us go through the shelves ourselves, or tell us where the secret compartment/room bookshelves even are, so my purpose of this thread is to explore from an historical point of view, what types of books might be so hidden and why. :QuestionM :shade:

Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7797 posts

Posted 15 March 2008 - 12:38 AM

Mmmmm...I think that if someone wants to hide something, Vatican librarian or not, they will. And if a person does hide something to keep it from others for whatever reason, then they don't say they are hiding something, they lie and obfuscate. Obviously, the Vatican isn't going to let us go through the shelves ourselves, or tell us where the secret compartment/room bookshelves even are, so my purpose of this thread is to explore from an historical point of view, what types of books might be so hidden and why. :QuestionM :shade:

This is Conspiracy Theory stuff worthy of the X-Files.

Do you have an axe to grind about the Catholic Church?
It that what this is about?
If it is I will gladly help you grind it.But don't dress it up in silly conspiracy theories.
Like most organised religions they fail in many ways that would have Jesus turning in his grave (If he had one).


Try going though ANY big old public libraries archives/stacks by yourself and see how far you get.
You need a vetted "reader's ticket" even to ask for books in the Mitchell Library in down town Macquarie Street Sydney in AD 2008

Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 15 March 2008 - 01:41 AM

This is Conspiracy Theory stuff worthy of the X-Files.

Do you have an axe to grind about the Catholic Church?
It that what this is about?
If it is I will gladly help you grind it.But don't dress it up in silly conspiracy theories. ...


:shade: Easy with that axe Michael. This is nothing more than fun with mystery history as I explained in the opening post, and thank you for noticing my dress silly. :QuestionM The Name of the :doh:.

alexander

alexander

    Dedicated Smart-ass

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5722 posts

Posted 17 March 2008 - 10:21 AM

I do have an argument with you if you feel there is a modern conspiracy in the RC Church to hide important historical documents more than 60-100 years old.

Well, i don't believe in many conspiracy theories, in fact i have argued far and wide about some of them, like the "fake lunar mission" and the 911 conspiracy bull crap, especially the pentagon one...

That said, I don't believe in conspiracy of the Vatican, i do however believe in self-preservations methods, and not giving wide access to information that may harm you, which may include historical documents. Yes, access to English versions of books have been an undergoing effort by the church, but ask yourself, who is translating them, do they post images of the originals, and how close to a translation it can be? A lot of ancient Hebrew texts are very difficult to translate, due to the nature of Hebrew, one's interpretation of a word may change the meaning of the doctrine all together. Don't get me wrong, in no way am i implying that church is giving their preferences to translations, i am simply wondering that, because if one interpretation of the text plays better with the already established church doctrines, then it would only make sense (business-wise) to release versions of translations that are more preferable for you. Not implying a yes, but definitely not outruling a no...

I'm not here to argue the church, i have stopped doing that a long time ago, it's quite pointless really, you gain nothing, but you loose patience, and at some point realize how much time you have wasted for nothing, open minded reasoning is simply not a way to reason with religious folk, at least most of them, so i have stopped trying, for the sake of both them and me. But enough of my elderly mumble, off to do some drafting for one of my many projects (can you say "paintball rifle" :hihi: )