It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shakespeare did NOT exist. Your schools lied to all of you.

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Wait.....Shakespere didn't exist?

That sentence confused me so much, that I'm gonna have to read this thread when I'm more clear minded lol.




posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


LOL...Leonardo wasn't in Michelangelo's class as an artist? Please tell me you're kidding, Leonardo is considered by many historians/people to be a SUPERIOR artist...I'm not sure if you're kidding/trolling or are just very ignorant of art history (in which case I suppose it's ok) but I hope you do realize that Leonardo da Vinci, painter of the MONA LISA is considered the superior ARTIST/PAINTER/DRAFTSMAN to Michelangelo, only in sculpting is Michelangelo considered superior. Even Michelangelo considered himself inferior in painting as he loathed painting and considered himself primarily a sculptor ...please tell me you were kidding.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


LOL...Leonardo wasn't in Michelangelo's class as an artist? Please tell me you're kidding, Leonardo is considered by many historians/people to be a SUPERIOR artist


I'm talking about quantity as well as quality. This webpage has him rated 5th greatest of all time.

www.ccarts.com...


...I'm not sure if you're kidding/trolling


Now I'm not sure if you are kidding. But just to clarify the matter. I'm not kidding.


or are just very ignorant of art history (in which case I suppose it's ok) but I hope you do realize that Leonardo da Vinci, painter of the MONA LISA is considered the superior ARTIST/PAINTER/DRAFTSMAN to Michelangelo, only in sculpting is Michelangelo considered superior.


I don't believe this is true, but to humor you, let's say that you are right. How much better is Leonardo? Are they close or comparable in talent in drawing/painting, or does Leonardo make Michelangelo look like a weekend painter?


Even Michelangelo considered himself inferior in painting as he loathed painting and considered himself primarily a sculptor


That's my understanding too. He thought painting was a waste of his time. Sculpting was his passion and he believed that he produced his best work as a sculptor.


...please tell me you were kidding.


Since you keep insisting, very well, "I was kidding."
Are you happy now?

I still don't think that Leonardo's career establishes the fact that it would be possible for one person to have the career of Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare together.

In fact Leonardo's career sort of makes my point. Yes he was prodigiously talented in more than one area, but his output as a painter certainly suffered. Both Bacon and Shakespeare had active, full careers, with a lot of output.

Bacon and Leonardo were classic "Renaissance" men with a wide range of interests. Shakespeare was a specialist, the best in the history of the world at what he did. I think it would be impossible for Bacon to be Shakespeare as well.


[edit on 26-2-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


First of all that webpage did not RANK the artist's, it was not in any order, there is no numbering and the author of the site never said there is any rank. Secondly, it's just a webpage by a hobbyist. ART HISTORIANS and true artists don't ever really "rank" artists like that but they consider Leonardo as a far greater artist. The site you yourself linked said that the Mona Lisa and Last Supper (both by Leonardo) are the most widely reproduced paintings of all time, so kind of goes against your own claim.
Thirdly, you contradict yourself AGAIN by initially stating that it's impossible for a polymath to be "1ST RANK" (as you yourself stated) at two divergent disciplines, yet you attempted to discredit Leonardo by saying he's only considered "amongst the very best" but not necessarily THE best of all time.
News to you: even if he's considered 10th best IN HISTORY, that still means he's "1st rank" in terms of being at the top group of the greatest. But alas he's not, he's actually considered by many 1st in the area of painting.
Lastly, you're wrong in using Leonardo as an example of precisely why Bacon "cannot be Shakespeare." You cite that Leonardo was a polymath and thus his output of art suffered, however he was not just A polymath, he was THE polymath and renaissance man. In fact, he was master at FAR MORE disciplines than Bacon would have learned in two life times. A cursory glance at their respective biographies on wikipedia shows Bacon being a "philosopher, statesman, scientist, lawyer, jurist, author."
Leonardo: "scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician, writer." And here's a quote for you: "He is widely considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time and perhaps the most diversely talented person ever to have lived."

So to use arguably "the most diversely talented person ever to have lived" as an example of WHY Bacon cannot have done Shakespeare is a little absurd given the fact that Bacon was no where near on the level of talent and diversity of knowledge that Leonardo da Vinci exhibited. In fact, by comparison Bacon wasn't much of a polymath and that should have left him PLENTY of time to write Shakespeare's plays given that Leonardo did so many things and was STILL capable of becoming arguably the greatest artist of all time in MULTIPLE artistic disciplines (sculpting, painting, drafting).


[edit on 26-2-2009 by rufusdrak]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


First of all that webpage did not RANK the artist's, it was not in any order, there is no numbering and the author of the site never said there is any rank.


I think it's a voting thing. The names appear in order of the number of votes cast for them.


Secondly, it's just a webpage by a hobbyist.


But you yourself quote the hobbyist as an authority further down in your post. I don't think you are a very serious person.


ART HISTORIANS and true artists don't ever really "rank" artists like that but they consider Leonardo as a far greater artist.


That gave me a chuckle.



The site you yourself linked said that the Mona Lisa and Last Supper (both by Leonardo) are the most widely reproduced paintings of all time, so kind of goes against your own claim.


Not really. Printing the same painting over and over doesn't really count as artistic output. Right?


. . . he was not just A polymath, he was THE polymath and renaissance man. In fact, he was master at FAR MORE disciplines than Bacon would have learned in two life times. A cursory glance at their respective biographies on wikipedia shows Bacon being a "philosopher, statesman, scientist, lawyer, jurist, author."
Leonardo: "scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician, writer."


OK. I get it. You are a relative of Leonardo and I have dared to rank him below Michelangelo as an artist. I apologize.


And here's a quote for you: "He is widely considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time and perhaps the most diversely talented person ever to have lived."


Yes but those are the words of a hobbyist, right? Right?


So to use arguably "the most diversely talented person ever to have lived" as an example of WHY Bacon cannot have done Shakespeare is a little absurd given the fact that Bacon was no where near on the level of talent and diversity of knowledge that Leonardo da Vinci exhibited.


Are you saying Shakespeare's plays were written by Leonardo?


In fact, by comparison Bacon wasn't much of a polymath and that should have left him PLENTY of time to write Shakespeare's plays given that Leonardo did so many things and was STILL capable of becoming arguably the greatest artist of all time in MULTIPLE artistic disciplines (sculpting, painting, drafting).


I disagree.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Well it's sad that you don't 'agree' because every single thing you've posted up to this point has worked AGAINST you in arguing my own case for me. For example, you cite Michelangelo's prodigious output as evidence of the fact that polymath's cannot master many different disciplines without sacrificing output, yet MICHELANGELO HIMSELF was a prodigious POLYMATH on a level rivaling Leonardo according to many historians.
Here's the first paragraph from wiki: "Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni[1] (March 6, 1475 – February 18, 1564), commonly known as Michelangelo, was an Italian Renaissance painter, sculptor, architect, poet and engineer. Despite making few forays beyond the arts, his versatility in the disciplines he took up was of such a high order that he is often considered a contender for the title of the archetypal Renaissance man, along with his rival and fellow Italian Leonardo da Vinci."

You just lost the argument sir. The main CRUX of your very argument just proved that you can be a stupendous polymath and still have prodigious output. Anything else or is this class dismissed?



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by enir nabu
Ever heard of Francis Bacon??


Yep.

Heard of him, and Kit Marlowe, and de Vere, and Roger Manners, and Will Stanley, and Mary Sidney, too.

My first year High School English teacher had us all study a bit of their work 25 years ago. (Just because your high school was lax, doesn't mean they all were).

This controversy is as old as the hills. Icke is doing nothing more than revisiting a perennial favourite, like Bigfoot or the Bermuda Triangle. There's nothing new here.

IMO, he's way off. Bacon's writing doesn't fit the style, especially the poetry. If it's anyone other than ol' Bill, it's deVere - but secret watermarks and secret society conspiracy theories are Icke's bread and butter, and literary analysis be damned...



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Well it's sad that you don't 'agree' because every single thing you've posted up to this point has worked AGAINST you in arguing my own case for me.


That's not true.


For example, you cite Michelangelo's prodigious output as evidence of the fact that polymath's cannot master many different disciplines without sacrificing output,


No. I cited Michelangelo's prodigious output to give an approximation of the sort of artistic output which would have to be added to Leonardo's artistic output to equate his output to the combination of Bacon's and Shakepeare's output, assumed by the Baconites to have actually been the output of Bacon alone.


yet MICHELANGELO HIMSELF was a prodigious POLYMATH on a level rivaling Leonardo according to many historians.


So now you are saying that it is possible to rival Leonardo?


Despite making few forays beyond the arts, his versatility in the disciplines he took up was of such a high order that he is often considered a contender for the title of the archetypal Renaissance man, along with his rival and fellow Italian Leonardo da Vinci."


What I said is that I didn't think Bacon could have had both his career and Shakespeare's. I don't think the above quote contradicts that.


You just lost the argument sir. The main CRUX of your very argument just proved that you can be a stupendous polymath and still have prodigious output.


I don't think you can have stupendous output on all fronts, not on the Shakepearean scale.


Anything else or is this class dismissed?


That's amusing.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


What exactly do you mean "on the Shakespeare" scale? Do you sir, claim to be able to QUANTIFY works of art from various disciplines? Please do tell then, how many "sculptures" of Michelangelo are worth a single Shakespearian play, etc? You realize some sculptures and paintings and such took years to complete, far more time than it probably took to write any of Shakespeare's plays?
You seem to be drowning in a mounting sea of evidence against you. It didn't look like you were aware of the vast nature of polymaths and now you're scrambling to make new excuses as to why a tremendous polymath couldn't have done Shakespeare.
Does the other rationalist Renee Descartes and arguably the most famous enlightenment philosopher ring a bell? Yes he too was a polymath. He is called the "father of modern philosophy" (coined: "I think therefore I am") and as such is amongst the most influential if not the most influential philosopher of modern times and yet he is not only such a prodigious and world famous mathematician that he created the universal cartesian coordinate system, created analytic geometry single handedly, but he is also one of the key figures of the scientific revolution as per his biography.
What did Sir Francis Bacon do (apart from hypothetically doing the Shakespeare plays) that is anywhere even NEAR the levels of the aforementioned polymaths?
In fact, Bacon did very little to even compare to any of these geniuses and as such the notion of his being responsible for Shakespeare's works on account of whether he had enough time in his life or not is highly viable.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


lol Antar I love the fact that you still have the energy to debate the issue again!

I think I made most of my points in our debate www.abovetopsecret.com...

Though I'm willing to concede that Shakespeare may have had some help, I think he was still the major contributor.

Can't be De Vere, he died too early.

Anyway, I wont repeat myself, I have nothing new to add!



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by antar
 
I’m not going to enter into the tar pits of a conspiracy debate trying to prove that Shakespeare wrote everything he is credited with writing. The proof that someone else did is lacking in substance and credibility. I don’t find the supporting innuendo, theory and circumstance convincing. The burden is on those that dispute his authorship to provide evidence.

There’s enough supporting evidence that Shakespeare existed. It’s found in Royal documents, legal documents and the diaries and letters of people such as Ben Johnson. Interestingly, Johnson was considered by far the superior Playwright throughout the 17th Century. I recall an old Lecturer explaining that plays of the time were considered much lower down the cultural ladder than the poem. If I can locate a link, Shakespeare’s work was considered unsuitable for the Oxford Bodleian Library. Johnson’s were not! It’s one of life’s ironies then, that Shakespeare was also ‘killed off’ by Johnson having caught a fever at a ‘merry party’ of his. He died a month later.


I’ve read several books about the ‘real’ Shakespeare, largely from the Oxfordians perspective. There are some excellent and scholarly arguments. I still didn’t find them compelling enough to agree with them. I’m not alone in that conclusion, but popularity doesn’t matter. I occasionally wonder if the 18th Century Oxfordians found it difficult to accept that a man without a Classical education could possibly succeed in literature. It’s hard to know. I do know however, that when a person is bent on an alternative theory it’s impossible to shake them of the conviction. I read Shakespeare every year and enjoy him very much. If others wish to believe that somebody else wrote it, I only hope that it doesn’t detract from their enjoyment.

You can sit back in triumph and consider it a victory if you wish. I will feel no offense at all. It’s your prerogative to do so. I’ve recently realized that a lot of discussions begin with opposing positions and peter out with the same positions held. En route to confirming our opinions, based on the facts as we see them, we may embark on adversarial comments. The nature of this thread would inevitably result in a small choir agreeing with your points and decrying mine. I’d sooner avoid this and cut to the end where we agree to disagree without insult to each other. It seems the best way forward.



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Since I started this thread, let me clear up a thing or two since everyone seems to be dropping "gems".

- I don't care if this subject has been blogged about before on this website, or newspapers or in your high school english classes or not. I decided to write a thread about what I know as fact and have learned because a few friends of mine asked me to write a thread. And I did. I haven't read any other blogs or threads on this subject on this website and I don't care if I ever do. I wrote what I felt like writing. Period.

- I never said a human being named William Shakespeare never existed. I am sure there was man with that name alive once. I said this one man did not write any of the plays we were taught were written by him.

- I never said ONLY Francis Bacon or the Earl of Oxford wrote the plays. I believe hundreds of high initiates from different secret societies from that early period the books were written in, wrote ALL of the pieces and portions and added and changed the stories to work in their favor as far as coded messages that needed to be implemented forever in the works.

- I do not care what you think of David Icke and I do not only quote his books and I do not only read his books nor did I ever said I did. David Icke includes a lot of relevant information and dates in his books that ANYONE can go and research on their own if they don't want to believe what he is writing. It just so happens that many of the geneological, hereditary traces, history, places, locations, etc., that he has written about are REAL. If he references a building, that building is still standing and you can go see the original scripture or document or carving he is describing. My eyes don't lie to me so when he or MANY MANY authors reference a place one can go to if they want to "dig" for truth, I go there or call the place overseas or visit in person to witness what was described.

- My high school was amazing -- LaGuardia High School of the Performing Arts in NYC - and I was taught the same garbage many in this thread were. No offense to your high schools if I disrespected your alma maters.

- FYI...any lunatic can post anything on Wikipedia so NEVER EVER use that as your ultimate proof of anythingwhen arguing a point. e.g while we're arguing, I can login to Wikipedia, change a post that second and prove myself right!

[edit on 01/19/2009 by enir nabu]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I think it is entirely possible for a person of common birth and a grammar school (in England at the time) education to have written Shakespeare's plays.

He would have had to learn more after school and would have had to acquire contacts with information about the political situation of the time, but that is not a barrier. Companies of players were adjuncts of the court at the time anyway, or of other wealthy sponsors.

Forgive me for citing Wikipedia, but it is convenient in an internet discussion. There is abundant evidence for collaboration among writers in Elizabethan/Jacobean drama.

Here's an example from a biographical note on Thomas Heywood:

en.wikipedia.org...


Heywood . . . . in his preface to The English Traveller (1633) he describes himself as having had "an entire hand or at least a maine finger in two hundred and twenty plays".


Given the fact of collaboration, of which there is no doubt, how would thoughts and phrases attributed to Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford or anybody else for that matter get into the plays of Shakespeare. Simple, Shakespeare, through contacts at court would be requested to insert them and perhaps buff them up a little.

Shakespeare is known to have cribbed his plots from extant sources. I think he got a lot more, including words, phrases, bits of gossip and insider knowledge from the world around him, the world of which he was a part. All artists do that anyway, gathering and shaping as they go.

When someone says, "Here is a phrase from the Earl of Oxford in a play by Shakespeare. That proves that Shakespeare's plays were written by Oxford.", I think it proves nothing more than that Oxford undoubtedly contributed something to one of the plays, or perhaps more than one of the plays. Just why and how the words got there will probably never be known.

I don't buy the notion that Bacon wrote Shakespeare or rewrote the Bible etc., but I do believe that powerful forces in service of the crown had a powerful influence on the media of the time, just as powerful forces have such an effect today. I'm sure they made certain that popular or authoritative literary works would serve their interests.

A lot of Shakespeare is a defense of the divine right of kings. There are numerous paeans of praise to Queen Elizabeth in the literature of her period. These things are not an accident. To that extent, Icke and others are correct, but to go the way of saying that Shakespeare's plays must have been written by a nobleman, like Oxford (Bacon is really out of the question, in my view.) is misreading the situation.

One of the problems is that noblemen could not be as fluid as the situation demanded, except to keep their eyes on the power politics ball and try to stay onside in games of intrigue.

What was needed was a much more flexible tool, a talented person with no position other than his patron's to defend. If he was very talented more powerful sponsors would use his services. Eventually he would be sponsored by the monarch and serve the interests of the ultimate power in the state. Shakespeare's career is like that. That is the paradigm of the theatre of the period. Entertainment, but politically tweaked entertainment.

It is very interesting to read Ben Jonson's praise of Shakespeare from the First Folio. He was one of the few people of his period to really know how great Shakespeare was. He really knew what it was to be a literary man operating in a dangerous arena as all literary men of the time were.

The other poems of the preface to the First Folio would not be there, I don't think, if Shakespeare were not the real author of the plays. These men are praising one of their own. They mean what they are saying. They knew very well what you had to go through in Elizabethan and Jacobean England, to do what Shakespeare did.

I think they were astounded by him.



[edit on 26-2-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Feb, 26 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar
Could you supply the direct link to David Ikes piece about this? I would like to see the date it was written, seems the links I used for the debate are broken, wonder if we have over run their servers? Lol, a stretch I know but if only 10% of our site was taking a look, we could shut them down... Hopefully they will be back up.

David Icke simply copied what Manly P. Hall wrote in this chapter of Secret Teachings of All Ages: sacred-texts.com...

In fact, nearly all of David Icke's religious and "occult" knowledge is straight from this and other Hall books. I know he can't be expected to be some sort of high initiate, but sheesh...

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Eleleth]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I occasionally wonder if the 18th Century Oxfordians found it difficult to accept that a man without a Classical education could possibly succeed in literature.


I think you've hit on something here that relates to my own thoughts about the political dynamic that was and is in operation around the phenomenon of Shakespeare and his work.

Shakespeare created his plays at the dawn of popular theatre in England. Prior to his period theatre was mostly religious "passion plays". During his time the theatre became very popular, so popular that the aristocratic establishment latched onto it as a way of enhancing their prestige.

However, putting on plays and acting in them exposed one to the potential disapproval of the throng. It takes guts to face the groundlings. As a sponsor of a company one is insulated to a certain extent from disapproval. One can always fire a bad actor or playwright. It is much harder to dodge the reputation of being a bad actor or playwright, particularly for a noblemen. Noblemen of the day were playing very high stakes games of political intrigue. Any slip could be disastrous.

This argues for participation by a nobleman with literary inclinations on the sly, concealing his identity. But the absorptions of politics, "peer" pressure, absorption in the pleasures of wealth, the need to stay ever vigilant to protect one's position argues against full time participation. I'm sure there were theatrical dilletantes among the nobility, but not professionals and not professionals on the scale of Shakespeare.

However, the power structure made use of this new medium to enhance it's prestige and integrated companies of players into the life of the court.

Fast forward to the 18th century.

More and more people are realizing that an Elizabethan playwright, William Shakespeare, was a towering figure in world literature. They are realizing that a commoner is a towering figure in world literature.

That is a problem.

There may be people who genuinely believe that someone of Shakespeare's backround could not have written those plays, but I think such people are simply snobs. The more serious group are those people who genuinely believe in the historical social order in England, the divine right of the monarch.

To have a product like Shakespeare's plays emanate from the common folk puts the whole social order into question, notwithstanding the fact that Shakespeare's whole body of work is a defense of the social order and a warning against usurpation of it. The fact that the work emanated from a symbiosis of the nobility and the common classes would not be seen as a good thing. It would still be seen as a challenge to the established social order.

I think that is the origin of repeated attempts by supporters of the ruling class to wrest Shakespeare's achievement away from the hands of the commoners.

Fast forward to the present day.

Commoners in the UK excel in every field imaginable, but particularly in the field of entertainment. The royal family and the nobility as a whole look like very ordinary, albeit very wealthy, people.

Whenever possible they try to absorb pre-eminent commoners into the traditional social order by awarding knighthoods, etc. Do the nobility dominate the theatre? No, unless you count the commoners absorbed into the nobility. The nobility dominate the life of leisure and are certainly heavy hitters in the life of politics. Just like in Shakespeare's day. Just like always.

Trying to claim that Shakespeare's plays were written by this or that aristocrat was just a clumsy early attempt to assert the validity of a social order being challenged.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


You must be joking with this entry. Look buddy, Francis Bacon is famous FOR translating the King James version of the bible so whether you "buy the notion" or not doesn't matter. It is a FACT. You know...like water is wet and ice is cold? Yea. A fact. He didn't re-write it...he translated it. Check before you make such silly claims.

Also, Oxford is a place...not a person. C'mon man you didn't know that?

Again, Wikipedia is never a credible source of information. Anybody can post anything there. Snap out of it.

And I never said Francis Bacon and one other guy wrote Shakespeare's plays. I said hundreds of high initiates including DeVere and Bacon wrote them.

UGH...



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eleleth

Originally posted by antar
Could you supply the direct link to David Ikes piece about this? I would like to see the date it was written, seems the links I used for the debate are broken, wonder if we have over run their servers? Lol, a stretch I know but if only 10% of our site was taking a look, we could shut them down... Hopefully they will be back up.

David Icke simply copied what Manly P. Hall wrote in this chapter of Secret Teachings of All Ages: sacred-texts.com...

In fact, nearly all of David Icke's religious and "occult" knowledge is straight from this and other Hall books. I know he can't be expected to be some sort of high initiate, but sheesh...

[edit on 26-2-2009 by Eleleth]

==================================

what are you talking about? David Icke quotes and references Manly P. Hall's works among hundreds of others authors throughout history. It's called compiling information and distributng it among the masses. He references everyone he quotes in his bibliographies.

why don't you try NOT being so smug about the ridiculous things YOU say for once. you're entitled to your opinions like mine but, don't begin lying. That's pathetic.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by enir nabu
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


You must be joking with this entry.


I'm getting tired of being accused of joking. I'll indicate jokes with asterisks OK.


Look buddy, Francis Bacon is famous FOR translating the King James version of the bible


What he is famous for is not the point. The point is what he did or didn't do.


so whether you "buy the notion" or not doesn't matter. It is a FACT. You know...like water is wet and ice is cold? Yea. A fact. He didn't re-write it...he translated it. Check before you make such silly claims.


Do you mind citing a source for this? I can tell that you are very erudite just from your writing style, but I'd like to see a source all the same.


Also, Oxford is a place...not a person. C'mon man you didn't know that?


Oxford is a place, a university, a dictionary and a person.


Again, Wikipedia is never a credible source of information. Anybody can post anything there. Snap out of it.


Wikipedia is credible when the truth is written there.


And I never said Francis Bacon and one other guy wrote Shakespeare's plays. I said hundreds of high initiates including DeVere and Bacon wrote them.


*Did they do it at a big barbecue?*


UGH...


*You're not Alley Oop are you?*


[edit on 27-2-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by enir nabu
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


You must be joking with this entry.


I'm getting tired of being accused of joking. I'll indicate jokes with asterisks OK.


Look buddy, Francis Bacon is famous FOR translating the King James version of the bible


What he is famous for is not the point. The point is what he did or didn't do.


so whether you "buy the notion" or not doesn't matter. It is a FACT. You know...like water is wet and ice is cold? Yea. A fact. He didn't re-write it...he translated it. Check before you make such silly claims.


Do you mind citing a source for this? I can tell that you are very erudite just from your writing style, but I'd like to see a source all the same.


Also, Oxford is a place...not a person. C'mon man you didn't know that?


Oxford is a place, a university, a dictionary and a person.


Again, Wikipedia is never a credible source of information. Anybody can post anything there. Snap out of it.


Wikipedia is credible when the truth is written there.


And I never said Francis Bacon and one other guy wrote Shakespeare's plays. I said hundreds of high initiates including DeVere and Bacon wrote them.


*Did they do it at a big barbecue?*


UGH...


*You're not Alley Oop are you?*


[edit on 27-2-2009 by ipsedixit]

================================

- If you are serious about not knowing who translated the King James Bible, which I can't believe you are, check the Enyclopaedia Americana, or the VERY FIRST PAGE of every King James Bible on Planet Earth and you'll find every rosicrucian symbol that relates to Francis Bacon proving undisputably that he is in fact the translator of the King James Bible.

- When Oxford is used in the sense of a name...it means Oxford is the place the person comes from. Didn't know I had to clarify such obviousness.

- No they didn't do it at a big barbecue. Perhaps you should so some more researching on your own before entering conversations about topis you know nothing about and then questioning the validity of people's statements. If you've never heard of the Bohemian Grove or the Skull & Bones Society...you really have no business asking me any further questions. I usually only blog with people that can teach me something or have a somewhat open mind to things they know NOTHING ABOUT.



[edit on 01/19/2009 by enir nabu]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by enir nabu
 

Very well. I consider myself thoroughly chastised.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join