By the way
It would be funny if the author had just pressed his name into the parchment with his fingernail out of boredom and we simply haven't seen it to this day.
(17-03-2024, 08:12 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.By the way
It would be funny if the author had just pressed his name into the parchment with his fingernail out of boredom and we simply haven't seen it to this day.
I have been trying to look for that, on the cover, inside cover, back cover.. still looking : )
(17-03-2024, 07:42 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There are simply too few details and symbols for religious people to draw conclusions. Biologically, it is simply too much to cover just one topic. There are many more processes than you can explain with just one topic. Plants and hot water alone would be tea. It can't all be about reproduction.
I'm not a religious person. Maybe that is why I see it. My point of view is from biology and history.
I'm not talking about the pages with plants. I'm talking about Quire 9 f67r1 to the Quire 14 Rosettes page. It is one complete story (with a lot of Zodiac stuff). It is the story of pre-born souls before Ensoulment, the process of Ensoulment, life on Earth, the afterlife, and then the big grand finale of Heaven. It is one story, start to finish. I'm sure they made it as big as they thought it needed to be.
The Quire 8 pages are probably something else. I don't know what they are.
..another possible author can be Ulisse Aldrovandi (which I believe Luigi Serafini in his Codex Seraphinianus got inspired by):
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
(17-03-2024, 09:31 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He's a century too late.
I doubt that matters much here...
(17-03-2024, 09:40 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (17-03-2024, 09:31 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.He's a century too late.
I doubt that matters much here...
Are you saying that you think the carbon-dating of 1404–1438 is wrong?
[quote="pjburkshire" pid='58176'
Are you saying that you think the carbon-dating of 1404–1438 is wrong?
[/quote]
On the contrary, one of the things I feel most certain about is that the radiocarbon dating matches the contents of the MS. I would even narrow it down further to the middle of that range.
What I mean is, I don't think it matters much in this thread.
I am also reposting this cause I find it quite astonishing that we clearly see the letters...
