Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Principle of Angelical (vs. Hebrew)

Expand Messages
  • Aaron
    ... In AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com, Terri Burns ... [...] ... In fact, I do have a section comparing Angelical and Hebrew in that upcoming
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 12 3:43 PM

      In AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com, "Terri Burns"
      <burnst@...> wrote:

      > Then we wind up looking at how Hebrew and Enochian interrelate or if
      > they do. People here who are also over on Vincent's Fifth Way list
      > Meanwhile Aaron, you're the one coming out with a work on Enochian, so
      > take over that one if you have the time!
      > {"The Angelical Language, Vols I and II: The History, Mythology and an
      > Encyclopedic Lexicon of the Tongue of Angels"
      > http://kheph777.tripod.com/indexangelical.html ]

      In fact, I do have a section comparing Angelical and Hebrew in that
      upcoming book. To make a long story short - there is no real direct
      relationship. Angelical does not work on any Hebrew prinicples. The
      two languages are similar only in that both of them work like any
      primitive language.

      Yep- Angelical works just like a primitive language. Like Hebrew,
      Babylonian, Egyptian, etc. Small root-words (usually of three
      letters) which may or may not stand as words on their own. Then
      affixes and compounds are used to compile more complex concepts.
      Articles do not exist, and other more sophisticated aspects of grammar
      (conjugation, tense, etc) are rare. Adjectives and pronouns are
      usually implied rather than literal.

      Now, I don't think this proves conclusively that Angelical is some
      ancient primordial tongue. It is also possible that a language
      created by one or two people would also work in a primitive fashion.

      > Also Aaron, over on the angelic linguistics group, you've already
      > brought up the subject of Dee operating from a well-established
      > tradition. [...] When you speak of Dee's interest in Enoch, are you
      > that Dee had seen a copy of the Book of Enoch, or that he had access to
      > the legends only?

      So far, I haven't seen any reason to believe that Dee had access to
      the apochryphal Book of Enoch (or 1Enoch). I think the legends
      recorded in that book were perfectly common (among mystics) as an oral
      tradition. Perhaps you or others have evidence I haven't considered -
      but Dee does state in his journals that he doesn't have the Book of
      Enoch. (The Angels then say they can bring it to him, but they
      delivered the Book of Loagaeth- the Celestial Book of Enoch- rather
      than the apocryphal text.)

      > Dee's 'Compendium Heptarchiae Mysticae.' Its among a number of texts
      > one could use to show possible knowledge of the Book of Enoch among
      > this magical friends-- if you take Assasel as Azazel--

      While Azazel may have originated in the Book of Enoch, I believe his
      name was known to mystics of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Lots of
      these names were preserved in Greek Magical papyri, the Testament of
      Solomon and other such texts. I believe Azazel himself was known from
      the Jewish tradition of the scapegoat - wasn't he?

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.