Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An experiment

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Not been around much recently.
    holiday and sickness.
    Hi Steve, sorry to hear about that.

    One of the problems with the "Experiment" suggested is that there are many like myself who do not believe the text has anything to do with the apron found close by, nor the Killer and thus nothing to do with the MURDERS.
    But then one could still try and answer the two questions. That could give some ideas for a method to discuss the text even if one does not think the text was constructed by the killer.

    Now others of course disagree on this, but no one has been able to provide direct evidence of a link in the past 128 years. There is much discussion over and over again on this issue, unfortunately a consensus has and probably never will be agreed.
    Well, leaving the old box and thinking new thoughts might help finding some evidence. Perhaps one might even reconsider the standpoint of not believing the killer wrote it.

    Those who see the murders as planned certainly will always argue in favour, those like me who see them as random and unplanned will always on the whole argue against and probably the majority who are in neither camp will change their minds over a link every so often.

    Craig, interesting point, however do we have a secondary confirmation for the lines you quote. I would like a contemporary Source/Reference for the information, did the author give one i have not read Harrison's book?

    Having said it is interesting i still have to say I see little to link the writing to the killer.

    Given that we have:

    No 100% accurate report of the spelling.
    No 100 accurate report of the text.
    And actually no accurate report of the layout, there are several versions flying about as we are all aware.

    The terms "neat" and "schoolboy hand" are based on reports given at the time agreed; but they are highly subjective being based on the interpretation of the person giving the report, those terms should not be taken as sacrosanct. my view of neat and good schoolboy hand writing maybe and probably are different to the next persons
    Well, the graffito was also very small. Not like the more common graffiti propaganda.

    Pierre, not had a chance to say hello since your return, Open to thinking outside the box, you finished your 1st post by asking 2 questions:

    "1. What would happen if we forget about the interpretation of this word as having anything to do with jews?"


    well yes that has already been done several times, the obvious well know version being the Masonic theories,
    No. The masonic theories are based on jewish mythology. So we have the word "j e w" again and are still inside the old box.

    Craig has now also offered a second view.
    Iīve heard about that view before but it is still inside the box: "Jew-ry / "Jew-es". Etcetera.

    I therefore do not see, how by answering that question we can think outside the "BOX", many already do believe what you contemplate.
    Oh, dear. Is it really that hard? Look at the word stem, Steve. Are we really super glued to it? The first question was "What would happen if we forgot about" it...

    "2. What would happen if one uses a dictionary to try and understand the word?"

    Has David said already this has been looked at, i have just done an online search again, I can find nothing other than references back to the murders of 1888. Am I missing something?
    Steve, look at the word stem. After you have seen it, forget it. Then you can not use it on the internet. So what is your next strategy? Thinking stepwise like this we are working out a new method.

    Can one ask what your researches into the word have revealed? what dictionary have you used?
    I am not discussing that matter. But that doesnīt mean I am not interested in methodology. And I am sure you have much better dictionaries than I have, even if you may not need them.

    Great hearing from you, Steve, and good to discuss methodology with you!


    All the best

    Steve

    Kind regards, Pierre
    Last edited by Pierre; 03-06-2016, 02:02 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      No. The masonic theories is based on jewish mythology. So we have the word "j e w" again adn are still inside the old box.
      Incorrect - see #13.

      Comment


      • #18
        Hi Pierre

        What do you mean by look at "the word stem" ? I'm not familiar with that (linguistics ?) phrase

        Craig

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          Always willing to oblige, I'll have a go then Pierre.
          Great!

          1. What would happen if we forget about the interpretation of this word as having anything to do with jews? - We might end up with a theory that it has something to do with Masons.
          That theory is based on ideas about jewish history. Still inside the same old box.

          2. What would happen if one uses a dictionary to try and understand the word? - One would find that the word "Juwe", or "Juwes", is not in the dictionary.*

          *other than as an old English spelling of Jew.
          But how could one find that - if one had entirely forgotten about the word? Then one would not look for it. So what other uses of a dictionary could there be? The method must be new if we should think outside the old box. Is it a good method to continue to search for old things - wouldnīt we not just get the same old answers?

          Kind regards, Pierre

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Pierre View Post
            Hi Craig,

            I have heard about that but we are still stuck in the same old box with it, since "Old Jewry" and "Jewes" both contain the word "jew".



            "Hiram Abiff was in Israel to build King Solomons temple. So we are still inside the same old box."


            Do I understand you correctly Pierre you are proposing that Juwes has no connection with either Jews or masons? if so i fully agree on the second point on the first i am undecided and open to another interpretation.

            Given that i do not think the text is linked to the murder I have no set point of view on what it might allude to if it does.

            I have checked online and cannot find the word Juwes, other than linking it to the text in question. i first checked this when Stephen Knights book was published long ago, there was no entry for the word then either.
            I see David is saying much the samething.
            if you have different information, what is it?

            Steve

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Craig H View Post
              Hi Pierre

              What do you mean by look at "the word stem" ? I'm not familiar with that (linguistics ?) phrase

              Craig
              Hi Craig,

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_stem

              I donīt like Wikipedia but this will do for basic knowledge.

              And also basically, If one doesnīt know anything about word stems, one can not know much about problematic texts.

              Regards, Pierre

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                That theory is based on ideas about jewish history. Still inside the same old box.
                It's got nothing to do with Jewish history or mythology Pierre. Those three individuals don't even exist in Jewish mythology. They are part of Masonic mythology and tradition.

                The word "Juwes" is not only not in the same box as the word "Jews" it is not even in the vicinity of the box.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                  No we are not in the same box because the derivation of the supposed (but actually non-existent) Masonic word "Juwes" was said to come from the names Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum, i.e. the three Juwes. It had nothing to do with anyone being Jewish, and no connection with the English word "Jews".
                  The names of the "ruffians" and the myth would not exist without the jewish mythology, so you are wrong. The three ruffians belong to a jewish myth based on 1s Kings and 2nd Chronicles. We are still in the same old box. What would happen if we forgot about the box?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                    But how could one find that - if one had entirely forgotten about the word? Then one would not look for it.
                    What ARE you talking about Pierre?

                    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                    So what other uses of a dictionary could there be?
                    I dunno. Fixing a wobbly table? Smacking someone round the back of the head? Myself, I tend to use it for looking up words. And the word in question is not to be found in the dictionary.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                      The names of the "ruffians" and the myth would not exist without the jewish mythology, so you are wrong. The three ruffians belong to a jewish myth based on 1s Kings and 2nd Chronicles. We are still in the same old box. What would happen if we forgot about the box?
                      I am not wrong Pierre.

                      1st Kings and 2nd Chronicles contain nothing more than the story of King Hiram of Tyre sending Hiram [Abiff] to build Solomon's Temple.

                      Upon that basic story a Masonic legend was built about the murder of Hiram Abiff by the three ruffians, Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Jewish history or mythology. It is purely masonic.

                      Completely out of the box.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Pierre

                        given that JUWES does not exist in any dictionary what is the stem of that word? I am struggling here? As you know in English the stem often varies little from the actual word itself
                        if we take JEW has the stem, are you suggesting we ignore the actually word completely?

                        steve

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                          The names of the "ruffians" and the myth would not exist without the jewish mythology, so you are wrong. The three ruffians belong to a jewish myth based on 1s Kings and 2nd Chronicles. We are still in the same old box. What would happen if we forgot about the box?
                          Have you a source that supports this claim? The three ruffians were not mentioned until Samuel Pritchard's Masonry Dissected (1730) and were not named. They were first named Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum in Three Distant Knocks (H Serjeant, 1760).

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                            Do I understand you correctly Pierre you are proposing that Juwes has no connection with either Jews or masons? if so i fully agree on the second point on the first i am undecided and open to another interpretation.
                            Steve, I do not propose anything like it. But I would like to construct a new method. And I strongly recommend new thinking and abandoning of old thinking to get new answers. And it sounds like you are on the right track since you are open to other ideas. But how would you actually do it? If you try to answer the questions more radically, what would the answers be?

                            Given that i do not think the text is linked to the murder I have no set point of view on what it might allude to if it does.
                            So you have no bias and that is good for your thinking.

                            I have checked online and cannot find the word Juwes,
                            Oh, you did have some bias anyway, since you remembered the word "Juwes" and looked for it. And like others, you get the same result. You cannot find the word Juwes. Still inside the box banging our heads against the walls...

                            other than linking it to the text in question. i first checked this when Stephen Knights book was published long ago, there was no entry for the word then either.

                            I see David is saying much the samething.
                            if you have different information, what is it?
                            I do not have information but dictionaries usually have. If you would like to answer the second question (instead of practicing the contents of the question) - what would your answer be?

                            Steve
                            Kind regards, Pierre

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by John G View Post
                              Have you a source that supports this claim? The three ruffians were not mentioned until Samuel Pritchard's Masonry Dissected (1730) and were not named. They were first named Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum in Three Distant Knocks (H Serjeant, 1760).
                              Hi John,

                              http://www.christian-restoration.com/fmasonry/hiram.htm

                              Regards, Pierre

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                "The Hiram Key" is an interesting read.
                                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X