|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:55 pm
I recently saw this on the history channel and I was wondering your thoughts. I honestly think he just put a few genuis phrases together in his predictions, so that when we find his works later...we form our own opinions and compare...but why?
Discuss.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:13 pm
Yea I think he just put a few genuis phrases together also. He was very good with logic I am guessing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:58 am
Foul Fiend Yea I think he just put a few genuis phrases together also. He was very good with logic I am guessing. That's true. He was a very smart man. To predict the fututre, he used a mix of atrology, christianity, and scrying, but never allowed anyone to see how he did it. He didn't want to be accused of witchcraft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:43 pm
+J a c k+ Foul Fiend Yea I think he just put a few genuis phrases together also. He was very good with logic I am guessing. That's true. He was a very smart man. To predict the fututre, he used a mix of atrology, christianity, and scrying, but never allowed anyone to see how he did it. He didn't want to be accused of witchcraft. Yea they would have lynched him in a heartbeat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:21 pm
+J a c k+ I recently saw this on the history channel and I was wondering your thoughts. I honestly think he just put a few genuis phrases together in his predictions, so that when we find his works later...we form our own opinions and compare...but why? Discuss. I agree to a point. Personally, I just think of him as a bad poet with a paranoid streak. His genious was simply inserting then current poliical commentary into his quatrains that could be read in almost any context and interpreted according to the reader's whims. A pity many of the same social problems exist today, as existed five hundred years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:04 pm
Jaaten Syric +J a c k+ I recently saw this on the history channel and I was wondering your thoughts. I honestly think he just put a few genuis phrases together in his predictions, so that when we find his works later...we form our own opinions and compare...but why? Discuss. I agree to a point. Personally, I just think of him as a bad poet with a paranoid streak. His genious was simply inserting then current poliical commentary into his quatrains that could be read in almost any context and interpreted according to the reader's whims. A pity many of the same social problems exist today, as existed five hundred years ago. Right. And people take his quotes too seriously and jump to too many conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:56 pm
I personally think that when ever his predictions seem right or close to what is going on now, its just pure coincidence. I just cant see anyone being able to predict anything like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:19 am
If you scribble a plausable random event on a piece of paper, eventually it will happen.
I for one am unimpressed with him
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:06 pm
Damnation And Salvation, Its All The Same To Me
Well, if you look at many of his predictions, they were quite vauge and were bound to happen, if not from man made issues, from natures wrath. In that aspect, I am unimpressed. However, his predictions are to a "T", which can be linked to his amazing logic skills smile . In that, I am impressed.
The Wings Of Angels Are All One Shade
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:30 pm
Threx If you scribble a plausable random event on a piece of paper, eventually it will happen. I for one am unimpressed with him true, true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:44 am
(Warning: Mix Of Fact And Opinion Ahead) Michel de Nostredame (here on known as Michel) was a very skilled writer, I'll give him that, but his prophesies are bunk. Michel used skillfully vague writings in his "Les Propheties" to give the illusion of prophetic power. The same principle applies to the idiot preachers, if you twist something enough, and its too old to prove what it meant in the original context, you can make any phrase mean damn near anything. Michel pulled a brilliant little number calling his writings prophesies in the first place, as we've observed in other religions if you WANT to believe its true, its true despite the evidence. I think what I am trying to say is Michel was a skilled writer and talented salesman but by no means a genius, and even less an actual prophet.
(/Semi-Ranting Opinion-Fest)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:04 pm
+J a c k+ Foul Fiend Yea I think he just put a few genuis phrases together also. He was very good with logic I am guessing. That's true. He was a very smart man. To predict the fututre, he used a mix of atrology, christianity, and scrying, but never allowed anyone to see how he did it. He didn't want to be accused of witchcraft.
I just watched something on TV right now on the Discovery channel called, "Decoding Nastrodamus." I missed most of it though but it basically was a documentary and movie about him and they believe he saw vision and used this "scrying" technique to see them. Apparently he was a docter trying to help those with the black plague or something.....I dunno, I only watched a little bit. I thought it was interesting but I don't know much about the whole subject so I can't really say much. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:48 pm
Although not a widely accepted theory, some people who study the prophecies, such as Jacques Halbronn, believe that many of the prophecies attributed to Nostradamus were forgeries and actually political commentaries in code (which is what Revelations is thought to be; writing about current events in a way that wouldn't get you thrown to the lions or whatever).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
