Talk:Vicarius Filii Dei
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
W=VV
editWhere does this W=VV arguement come from, I have looked up W and roman numerals the only result I can find are many claiming it has no value and one claiming it means 800. --174.45.184.184 (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- It comes from history. There didn't used to be a letter W. When a word had the W sound, it was two V's next to each other. Since the bible is 2000 years old, it's numerology was based on this old alphabet where a W=2 V's.Farsight001 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Source? I mean I don't have a vested interest in if her name enumerates to 666 or not but I cannot find anything about this--174.45.184.184 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- While Wikipedia doesn't meet its own reliable source guidelines (as it is a user-generated and unstable source), the article W explains more. In German, Spanish, French, W is still called "Double V."
- You'll also notice that the Vulgate Bible (or any Latin text for that matter) doesn't feature the letter W anywhere in it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Fact W is in appearence two V's doesn't mean that it can be used in roman numerals as such. --174.45.184.184 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- We know that. But it's not just that way in appearance. The letter W is literally derived from a double V. The similarity in appearance is not merely coincidence.Farsight001 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Fact W is in appearence two V's doesn't mean that it can be used in roman numerals as such. --174.45.184.184 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Source? I mean I don't have a vested interest in if her name enumerates to 666 or not but I cannot find anything about this--174.45.184.184 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The Romans would not have seen it as anything other than two Vs. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is still his assertion we cannot come up with our own roman numeral rules--174.45.184.184 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously? We just explained multiple times that its NOT just an assertion. It's pretty common knowledge.Farsight001 (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is still his assertion we cannot come up with our own roman numeral rules--174.45.184.184 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Are you ready to call WP:IDHT on this as well? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not quite yet, but I'm close.Farsight001 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to point out consensus by definition cannot be reached by three people. Secondly I thought it should be deleted completly, and still do, but did not do so but merely stated it was his opinion, we cannot know how others over a thousand years would react to seeing something for enumeration purposes. Considering I did not delete text I felt was 100% wrong you cannot say I ignored anything, so you should watch your accusations. All of that said I suppose wether either of us is right or wrong does not alter what is said so --174.45.184.184 (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not quite yet, but I'm close.Farsight001 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Are you ready to call WP:IDHT on this as well? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, WP:CONSENSUS does not require a minimum number of editors, and outside of site guidelines, three would be the minimum needed for a consensus (consensus need not be unanimous). Consensus is not overturned by only one person, and two editors happen to represent the current consensus. Noone else is objecting to the current consensus. Also, consensus on Wikipedia tends to go with the guidelines (which represent site-wide consensus). The information is sourced, so any statement about W not being usable as two Vs is original research (which we do not accept) while (as it is part of a source), the use of W as two Vs is not. In a past edit (before the gematria formula was rejoined with its source) I had also provided the source Letter by letter: an alphabetical miscellany By Laurent Pflughaupt, p.128, which explains that W is two Vs or two Us (which in turn was V originally). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but does it really matter? We have a sentence that says that Catholic apologists do use "Ellen Gould White" as an example of a name that can be manipulated to produce number 666 (meant to show that such techniques can easily backfire and thus prove nothing of value). We also have a source for that (one Catholic apologist). Do we really need to decide if those techniques are "correct"? I don't think so, thus a couple of weeks ago ([1]) I removed the words "The 'W' is counted as two 'U's' or 'V's'", moving the rest of the explanation to be supported by the source mentioned above (the source did not explicitly say that W was counted as V and V, thus perhaps we don't need to say that either). Would that be a satisfactory solution? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Historical sources for W=VV
editHistorically, the letter W began as a double u, at a time when u and v were not differentiated. This digraph was used in the earliest Old English texts, but was replaced by the runic letter wynn (ƿ, like a p with a large loop), which remained in use over most of the Old English period. The digraph uu for the w sound appears in Old High German manuscripts, and it appears in this form in modern printed editions. Several instances appear in the following manuscript: http://c8.alamy.com/comp/EABEG6/historic-manuscript-the-wessobrunn-prayer-or-the-wessobrunn-creation-EABEG6.jpg
The treatment of W as a numerical letter, equivalent to V+V = 10, is centuries old. This is shown in an old diversion called the chronogram, in which a sentence was constructed, the numerical letters of which add up to the current year. In Europe (and Britain) this was commonly done in Latin, but one ingenious one for 1642 appears in both Latin and English, where it is obvious that W was regarded as a double V: "'TV DeVs IaM propItIVs sIs regI regnoqVe hVIC VnIVerso." – "O goD noVV sheVV faVoVr to the kIng anD thIs VVhoLe LanD." This example appears in some (not all) editions of Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.
I have seen (but cannot find) front pages of 18th century books where W appears as VV Koro Neil (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
A DEEP FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The recent reversions by Farsight001 are blatant censorship. I invite the reader to see the overwhelming wealth of pertinent verified historical documentation regarding Vicarius Filii Dei at http://biblelight.net/666.htm Farsight001, if you or any of the other Catholic gatekeepers here want to challenge the veracity of any of the documentation on my site, email me at [email protected] and I will post our entire discussion, and link to it from the 666 page. I don't expect any of you to accept the challenge. Biblelight (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
O.K. let's just see how willing you really are. 1. This article is about a Latin phrase, and whether or not it is applicable to the Papacy, in particular whether or not it has ever had any official aspects or official character with regard to it. Catholics deny this, Seventh Day Adventists (like myself) maintain that historically it has indeed been used repeatedly by popes, and by that very usage, it is properly and rightly deemed an official title. Does this accurately summarize the issue? If not, please clarify. 2. By the very nature of the subject, it is patently obvious that any use of Latin in authentic papal documents is clearly and undeniably pertinent and material to the subject, and should be deemed admissible evidence. To exclude such evidence because it is in a foreign language is a logical absurdity, as it precludes presenting the very information that is logically essential to the topic. Therefore, any Wikipedia rules that discourage inclusion of foreign language documents are suspended, as they are not logically applicable to this article. Do you agree? 3. As the vast majority of papal documents have never been translated into English, then these documents, are deemed exempt from Wikipedia rules regarding primary sources, due the same logical absurdity mentioned above. Do you agree? Now, Farsight001, taking the above into consideration, without which the truth about this topic cannot possibly be presented, please explain precisely what about the two entries of mine that you have recently reverted are factually erroneous? Be specific, or else please acknowledge them to be true, correct, accurate and in good order in every respect. Now, what if anything, still hinders the inclusion of these entries? Biblelight (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE as it applies here, particularly the part about when it is better to ignore rules.. Biblelight (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem is not my understanding or adherence to the Wikipedia rules. This is about content that Catholics will repress relentlessly because it defames Mother Church. They will not spare any effort to prevent any reference to papal documents that employed vicarius filii dei from being added to this article. They will claim that every Wikipedia rule imaginable precludes the addition of that information. Examples: Neutral Point Of View prevents it because you are pushing your own POV, and that is prohibited. Just how exactly does merely referring to a historically authentic papal document and linking to it online, with a translation, push ANY POV? It is nothing more than a statement of fact: that a document exists. Neither is that Original Research, as it does not propose unique new knowledge that has never been thought of before. Etc, etc. However, as I have shown above, there is a Common Sense provision that allows any and all rules to be IGNORED. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE On the basis of that provision, the previous censorship of this article to prevent inclusion of pertinent historical documents can be justifiably reverted and remain within the established Wikipedia rules. Biblelight (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
BUT, those two recent entries merely link to authentic papal documents and cite them. In and of themselves those two entries are NOT defamatory in any way! They slander nobody! They are not presenting a Point Of View! Citing them is not Original Research! But those papal documents ARE evidence, pertinent evidence that prominent Catholics have repeatedly denied ever existed (I can give the quotes). I do not expect this article to make an overall judgment in favor of one interpretation or conclusion over any other, but if it is going to have a section heading "Origins and uses of the phrase" then the entries that were recently reverted by Farsight001 have every right to be included, they are NOT violations of the rules, and that is common sense. I will let him revert his own censorship. Biblelight (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
No, that is NOT what Original Research means. It means you have developed something so incredibly unique that nobody else has ever thought of it before. This does not apply here, vicarius filii dei and dei filii vicarius are equivalent, like the English, vicar of the Son of God and God's Son's vicar are identical in meaning. You are misapplying the rule. Biblelight (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research which I quote: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1]" The rule on OR has no application what so ever to the Latin word order in question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SYN#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position which says quite specifically: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research." Scroll down to Translations and transcriptions for the quote. Now, please continue with your expert translation of the Latin in question, what exactly does Pope Paul VI say here: ? Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius et Procurator, quibus numen aeternum summam Ecclesiae sanctae dedit, ... Can you demonstrate this translation is erroneous? As the worshipful Son of God's Vicar and Caretaker, to whom the eternal divine will has given the highest rank of the holy Church, ... Biblelight (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Please refer to this page which uses "Jesu Christi Filii Dei Vicarius", exactly the same word order as Pope Paul VI used in another decree online here where he says "adorandi Filii Dei hic in terris Vicarii Petrique successores" meaning "the worshipful Son of God's Vicar(s) upon the earth, Peter's successor(s), ...". In context then, "Adorandi Dei Filii Vicarius et Procurator", "Jesu Christi Filii Dei Vicarius", and "adorandi Filii Dei hic in terris Vicarii Petrique successores", and "vicarius Filii Dei" in the Donation are all referring to the Pope as "the vicar of the Son of God", despite variations in the Latin word order. Now, do any of you really want to object that any of these are invalid translations? Biblelight (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Now, remember I was strongly invited to discuss this topic in this forum. Why are you not willing to give faithful translations? Excuse me, but if you are correct, then you should be able to easily render accurate translations of each example, and thoroughly demonstrate how it is pure folly to consider these as papal titles. If you could really do this, you would be eager and quick to pounce and expose the errors. But you can't do this, can you? You think the Adventist case is weak? This association of vicarius filii dei to 666 is such a minor element in identifying the antichrist as to be nearly unnecessary. There is in the Bible a formidable list of parallels that are powerful and unmistakable in their application. There is only a single entity on earth that fulfills each and every one of the points presented, and that is the Roman Catholic Church. I invite the reader to watch this video which presents the extensive and convincing biblical truth. It is simply irrefutable. Biblelight (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Well Ian, I am trying very hard to accept in good faith the assertions and guidance by some of these "more experienced editors". I am apparently supposed to obediently accept and kowtow to their claimed authority and wisdom, when the rules are clearly being ignored or misapplied by them in order to justify their censorship. Improve Wikipedia? Yes, that is what I am trying to do, even now. This discussion shows clearly where improvement is sorely needed. However, I am not expecting anything to change here any time soon. Biblelight (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a perfect example. Farsight001, how can you be so certain about what I have read, or not read, about the rules? You don't have the first clue about that, I will go even further, that is a blatant lie that you will never be able to prove. And that is what I am supposed to accept in good faith?. Biblelight (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC) |
F=5000???
edit"F means 5,000"
In which Universe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.29.219 (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
"Many" vs. "Some"
editThere is a statement under "Protestant View" that "Many Protestants have the view that Vicarius Filii Dei can be applied to the Bishop of Rome."
Based on my research, this is a minority view. Making the statement "many" is an editorial comment without a reliable, published source. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 17:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have removed the paragraph entirely, since it was not sourced by reliable secondary sources. Veverve (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)