The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive

[Mike]

I recently re-read SHOTW and looks like the book 'The True Celtic Language and The Stone Circle of Rennes-les-Bains' by Henri Boudet that was quoted on pg 641-644 from a translation that was done has been published in English since I last read SHOTW. Found it at two places.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/2914405502/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
and
http://www.atelier-empreinte.fr/thetruecelticlanguageandthestonecircleofrenneslesbains-p-2193.html

 

[arifex]

What's the difference between the Scientology Church and your book?
Please don't be offended, i just hate to bed on the wrong horse so to speak (the quest to continously separate the cream from the milk).

 

[Approaching Infinity]

What's the difference between the Scientology Church and your book?
Please don't be offended, i just hate to bed on the wrong horse so to speak (the quest to continously separate the cream from the milk).

There are many differences between Laura's book (and research in general) and Scientology. For one, SH is based on historical research, not simply authoritative statements (as is the case with LRH).

 

[anka]

I want to make some comments and ask for answers to my questions upon the SHOTW material: PART 1
-----

Quote, page 420:
By the 7th century BC, Jerusalem had finally become a relatively large city, dominated by a Temple to the God of Israel that served as the single national shrine. But this was the Second Temple, which was built as a result of the vision of the “captives” who had returned from exile in Babylon.

That looks like a typo and it should be 6th century. See the page 362:
After this Cyrus entered Babylon where he was received as a liberator, in 539 BC. The following year he issued the famous decree permitting the Hebrew captives to return to Palestine and “rebuild” the temple.

-----

This following is completely unclear to me.

Page 436, main text:
Prometheus has issued two stunning challenges to Zeus' wit and rule in the name of humankind. The fact is, the four sons of Iapetus and Clymene – Atlas, Menoetius, Prometheus and Epimetheus – were trouble to Zeus from the start because they represent a rival line of descent from Ouranos and Gaia, which, if allied with unruly manking, could mean trouble for the gods!

Page 436, footnote 272:
A Titan, son of Gaia and Uranus. Clymene, and Ocianid, bore him the Titans Prometheus, Epimetheus, Atlas, and Menoetius. In the war between gods and Titans, he was imprisoned by Zeus in Tartarus.

Wikipedia, the term Oceanids:
In Greek mythology and, later, Roman mythology, the Oceanids[pronunciation?] (Ancient Greek: Ὠκεανίδες, pl. of Ὠκεανίς) were the three thousand daughters of the Titans Oceanus and Tethys. Each was the patroness of a particular spring, river, sea, lake, pond, pasture, flower or cloud.[1] Some of them were closely associated with the Titan gods (such as Calypso, Clymene, Asia, Electra) or personified abstract concepts (Tyche, Peitho).

One of these many daughters was also said to have been the consort of the god Poseidon, typically named as Amphitrite.[2] More often, however, she is called a Nereid.[3]

Oceanus and Tethys also had 3,000 sons, the river-gods Potamoi (Ποταμοί, "rivers").[4] Whereas most sources limit the term Oceanids or Oceanides to the daughters, others include both the sons and daughters under this term.[5]

Who were the parents of the 4 Titans?

Is Ocianid just one female or a group of females or possibly sons and daughters together (e.g. as in Wiki, the daughters of Oceanus and Tethys)?

And if Gaia and Uranus are one generation, which generation are the 4 Titans - the immediate next or the one after?

-----

2B continued

 

[Laura]

I want to make some comments and ask for answers to my questions upon the SHOTW material: PART 1
-----

Quote, page 420:
By the 7th century BC, Jerusalem had finally become a relatively large city, dominated by a Temple to the God of Israel that served as the single national shrine. But this was the Second Temple, which was built as a result of the vision of the “captives” who had returned from exile in Babylon.

That looks like a typo and it should be 6th century. See the page 362:
After this Cyrus entered Babylon where he was received as a liberator, in 539 BC. The following year he issued the famous decree permitting the Hebrew captives to return to Palestine and “rebuild” the temple.

No, it's not a typo. Please read the first sentence carefully. It's not about when the temple was built, but about how the city had developed SINCE the temple was built. You misplaced your bolding. I'll underline the point of the sentence.

-----

This following is completely unclear to me.

Page 436, main text:
Prometheus has issued two stunning challenges to Zeus' wit and rule in the name of humankind. The fact is, the four sons of Iapetus and Clymene – Atlas, Menoetius, Prometheus and Epimetheus – were trouble to Zeus from the start because they represent a rival line of descent from Ouranos and Gaia, which, if allied with unruly manking, could mean trouble for the gods!

Page 436, footnote 272:
A Titan, son of Gaia and Uranus. Clymene, and Ocianid, bore him the Titans Prometheus, Epimetheus, Atlas, and Menoetius. In the war between gods and Titans, he was imprisoned by Zeus in Tartarus.

Wikipedia, the term Oceanids:
In Greek mythology and, later, Roman mythology, the Oceanids[pronunciation?] (Ancient Greek: Ὠκεανίδες, pl. of Ὠκεανίς) were the three thousand daughters of the Titans Oceanus and Tethys. Each was the patroness of a particular spring, river, sea, lake, pond, pasture, flower or cloud.[1] Some of them were closely associated with the Titan gods (such as Calypso, Clymene, Asia, Electra) or personified abstract concepts (Tyche, Peitho).

One of these many daughters was also said to have been the consort of the god Poseidon, typically named as Amphitrite.[2] More often, however, she is called a Nereid.[3]

Oceanus and Tethys also had 3,000 sons, the river-gods Potamoi (Ποταμοί, "rivers").[4] Whereas most sources limit the term Oceanids or Oceanides to the daughters, others include both the sons and daughters under this term.[5]

Who were the parents of the 4 Titans?

Is Ocianid just one female or a group of females or possibly sons and daughters together (e.g. as in Wiki, the daughters of Oceanus and Tethys)?

And if Gaia and Uranus are one generation, which generation are the 4 Titans - the immediate next or the one after?

-----

2B continued

It depends on which authority you follow. You'll probably understand why the generations of the gods is so confusing after you read "Comets and the Horns of Moses." It's a can of worms.

 

[anka]

PART 2

-----

Page 507, 3rd paragraph:
As it happens, when Jeremiah later, after the fall of Jerusalem and the exile to Babylon, sent a letter to the exiles in Babylon, it was delivered for him by Gemariah, son of Hilkiah, and by Elasah, son of Shaphan.

Page 507, 4th paragraph:
Gemariah and Ahikam, sons of Shaphan stood by Jeremiah at several critical moments; once even saving Jeremiah from being stoned.

Is that a typo?

-----

I would like to understand more of the process of phonetic cabala. Is there any such book that brings a reader closer to understanding the essence of it?

-----
-----

Well that's it for now. I shall likely ask more as soon as i will have read the SHOTW for the second time. ;)

 

[anka]

Thank you very much, Laura, for the prompt response. I am trying to understand the answer to the question about the Temple. I don't get it yet - maybe I need a rest and come back to it later.

The second answer is clear. I have actually read SHOTW almost a year ago and needed to digest it and finished the second volume (Comets and Horns of Moses) just a couple of months ago so yes, i am aware of the 'can of worms'. Only when I took my notes for the first volume and started picking the things that bothered me, I couldn't help but ask.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Page 507, 3rd paragraph:
As it happens, when Jeremiah later, after the fall of Jerusalem and the exile to Babylon, sent a letter to the exiles in Babylon, it was delivered for him by Gemariah, son of Hilkiah, and by Elasah, son of Shaphan.

Page 507, 4th paragraph:
Gemariah and Ahikam, sons of Shaphan stood by Jeremiah at several critical moments; once even saving Jeremiah from being stoned.

Is that a typo?

Nope. There are two Gemariahs: _http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Gemariah

 

[Laura]

PART 2

-----

Page 507, 3rd paragraph:
As it happens, when Jeremiah later, after the fall of Jerusalem and the exile to Babylon, sent a letter to the exiles in Babylon, it was delivered for him by Gemariah, son of Hilkiah, and by Elasah, son of Shaphan.

Page 507, 4th paragraph:
Gemariah and Ahikam, sons of Shaphan stood by Jeremiah at several critical moments; once even saving Jeremiah from being stoned.

Is that a typo?

No, the point being made is that this is how stuff is in the Bible. Whoever was editing it or writing it did a really sloppy job. And I'm sure they never imagined computerized text searches.

 

[Laura]

Thank you very much, Laura, for the prompt response. I am trying to understand the answer to the question about the Temple. I don't get it yet - maybe I need a rest and come back to it later.

Let me try again using the text itself:

page 362: After this Cyrus entered Babylon where he was received as a liberator, in 539 (6th century) BC. The following year he issued the famous decree permitting the Hebrew captives to return to Palestine and “rebuild” the temple.

Now, it took awhile to rebuild the temple - there were many ups and downs and reversals and so forth, and it took awhile for the population to grow and for trade to expand etc. Nevertheless, within a hundred years, by the 7th century BC, Jerusalem had finally become a relatively large city, dominated by a Temple to the God of Israel that served as the single national shrine. (But this was the Second Temple, which was built as a result of the vision of the “captives” who had returned from exile in Babylon a 70 to 100 years earlier under the edict of Cyrus).

You have to understand that the edict of Cyrus did not instantly turn Jerusalsm into a "relatively large city dominated by a temple". It wasn't "add water and stir and presto: instant city and temple."

 

[anka]

Thank you very much, Laura, for the prompt response. I am trying to understand the answer to the question about the Temple. I don't get it yet - maybe I need a rest and come back to it later.

Let me try again using the text itself:

page 362: After this Cyrus entered Babylon where he was received as a liberator, in 539 (6th century) BC. The following year he issued the famous decree permitting the Hebrew captives to return to Palestine and “rebuild” the temple.

Now, it took awhile to rebuild the temple - there were many ups and downs and reversals and so forth, and it took awhile for the population to grow and for trade to expand etc. Nevertheless, within a hundred years, by the 7th century BC, Jerusalem had finally become a relatively large city, dominated by a Temple to the God of Israel that served as the single national shrine. (But this was the Second Temple, which was built as a result of the vision of the “captives” who had returned from exile in Babylon a 70 to 100 years earlier under the edict of Cyrus).

You have to understand that the edict of Cyrus did not instantly turn Jerusalsm into a "relatively large city dominated by a temple". It wasn't "add water and stir and presto: instant city and temple."

But that is, I think, the other way around, isn't it? When we are talking about BCE, the 7th century BC was before the 6th century. In other words, the 7th century BC is preceding the 6th BC. So in that case, when we talk about one hundred or so years of development since the edict of Cyrus (538 BC or 6th century), then we end up at around 438 BC (5th century).

I apologize if it is a 'system error' of mine but that is how I learned counting of centuries of BCE (I come from Czech) and possibly the Western way is different and unknown yet to my knowing.

 

[Laura]

No, you are absolutely right. My brain was stuck on AD.

Geeze!

 

[anka]

No, you are absolutely right. My brain was stuck on AD.

Geeze!

Well, uff, you saved my day now! :) I thought there is something terribly wrong with me that I don't understand a simple explanation of yours.

Anyway, once again thanks very much to you as well as to Approaching Infinity for taking the time to answer and for being so quick.

 

[Laura]

No, you are absolutely right. My brain was stuck on AD.

Geeze!

Well, uff, you saved my day now! :) I thought there is something terribly wrong with me that I don't understand a simple explanation of yours.

Anyway, once again thanks very much to you as well as to Approaching Infinity for taking the time to answer and for being so quick.

Not to worry! I get caught in that tricky trap often enough. It's hard when I keep jumping back and forth between AD and BC, too.

 

[Merlin]

Completed 'Secret History of The World' Vols I and II . . . The books are simply awesome. . . Now on Page 180 of 'Earth Changes . . . .- Vol-III'
Pierre Lescaudron simply rocks !!! He makes a complicated subject like Plasma Cosmology appear so simple, logical and legible. The use of colour charts and graphs is an eyeopener and most certainly helps. . .

The World will never be the same again . . .
Waitin for 'Secret History : Vol-IV' with bated breath. Is the title 'Josephus, Pilate and Paul: Its Just a Matter of Time' ?

Many thanx Laura . . . and Pierre . . .