18-07-2019, 10:45 PM
So here's the problem. Let's just say that we can't identify the critter by the way it looks. Sure, someone can say it looks like 'X' or it looks like 'Y' and some will favor a particular identification. That's the way it goes and that is why the identification has not been resolved.
The identification is not based on appearance. The identification is based on structure. The structure has three parts as defined by the illustration from the 'Apocalypse of S Jean". Those three parts sit in a specific relationship: 1) the lamb, 2), the cosmic boundary, and 3) the droplets (of blood). Once the structure is established, then the individual parts can be manipulated. The image from the Golden Fleece can be transposed into the structure of the 'Apocalypse' image.
The lamb in the "Apocalypse' illustration is clearly designated as holy. It has a halo, it is in a vesica piscis, it is framed by a cloud band. It is 'The Lamb of God" but it is certainly not the more typical example of the 'Agnus Dei', that is often shown with the Cross and/or flag. And the "Apocalypse' has the droplets of blood, which makes this "Blood of the Lamb" illustration and structure significantly different from the typical Agnus Dei image.
The VMs illustration has the same three parts as the 'Apocalypse' image. Once the structure is established, then any sort of animal as long as it has some sort of vague and ambiguous 'sheep-like' appearance *is* the lamb. Any sort of cosmic boundary *is* a cosmic boundary. A nebuly line is, by etymological derivation, equivalent to a cloud-band. That equivalence is also verified as a necessary part of the interpretation of the VMs cosmos. And in the third part, the VMs illustration has the vertical lines to indicate generic droplets.
So if the critter looks like an armadillo, pangolin, dog or dragon, why would that animal be associated with the cosmic boundary and the droplets? And even if it were a mythical creature involved in the condensation of rain, *do we have such an illustration from a relevant time and place?* No. What we do have is the "Apocalypse" illustration of "The Blood of the Lamb". And the identification is based on the similarity of structure matches structure, not on appearance (of one part) looks like the appearance of some sort of proposed creature.
Similar use of structure and appearance are found in the VMs cosmos. The structure is similar, yet the appearance is intentionally dissimilar. The earth is an inverted T-O structure. But the comparison between the pictorial representation of the BNF Fr. 565 fol.23 image could not be more different visually from the linguistic description in the VMs. And the other cosmic parts are similar. Trickery and the use of ambiguity may be hard to accept on the basis of a single example, But then it turns out that there is more than one example.
The identification is not based on appearance. The identification is based on structure. The structure has three parts as defined by the illustration from the 'Apocalypse of S Jean". Those three parts sit in a specific relationship: 1) the lamb, 2), the cosmic boundary, and 3) the droplets (of blood). Once the structure is established, then the individual parts can be manipulated. The image from the Golden Fleece can be transposed into the structure of the 'Apocalypse' image.
The lamb in the "Apocalypse' illustration is clearly designated as holy. It has a halo, it is in a vesica piscis, it is framed by a cloud band. It is 'The Lamb of God" but it is certainly not the more typical example of the 'Agnus Dei', that is often shown with the Cross and/or flag. And the "Apocalypse' has the droplets of blood, which makes this "Blood of the Lamb" illustration and structure significantly different from the typical Agnus Dei image.
The VMs illustration has the same three parts as the 'Apocalypse' image. Once the structure is established, then any sort of animal as long as it has some sort of vague and ambiguous 'sheep-like' appearance *is* the lamb. Any sort of cosmic boundary *is* a cosmic boundary. A nebuly line is, by etymological derivation, equivalent to a cloud-band. That equivalence is also verified as a necessary part of the interpretation of the VMs cosmos. And in the third part, the VMs illustration has the vertical lines to indicate generic droplets.
So if the critter looks like an armadillo, pangolin, dog or dragon, why would that animal be associated with the cosmic boundary and the droplets? And even if it were a mythical creature involved in the condensation of rain, *do we have such an illustration from a relevant time and place?* No. What we do have is the "Apocalypse" illustration of "The Blood of the Lamb". And the identification is based on the similarity of structure matches structure, not on appearance (of one part) looks like the appearance of some sort of proposed creature.
Similar use of structure and appearance are found in the VMs cosmos. The structure is similar, yet the appearance is intentionally dissimilar. The earth is an inverted T-O structure. But the comparison between the pictorial representation of the BNF Fr. 565 fol.23 image could not be more different visually from the linguistic description in the VMs. And the other cosmic parts are similar. Trickery and the use of ambiguity may be hard to accept on the basis of a single example, But then it turns out that there is more than one example.