Tag Archives: Nostradamus Bible quotes

The Preface: Reigns, Sects, & Religions (Part III)

As stated prior, the Latin words presented by Nostradamus are very similar to the Latin translation of the original Greek from the Book of Matthew (7:6).  The original forms of those sources contain no punctuation, as punctuation was a later invention of Western civilization.  The English translations publicly recognized (multiple versions) all present punctuation (of some type, but not all the same) at the same points that Nostradamus’ text presents punctuation.  However, the use of punctuation in The Prophecies (letters and quatrains) cannot be read in the same manner that the application of syntactical punctuation is.

In the preface, the “quote” from Matthew 7:6 is divided into four series of words, with two commas presented before an ampersand.  The method for reading Nostradamus calls for reading each word, in the order the words are written, and developing a complete understanding of the full-scope of meanings each word has, which is demonstrated in the multiplicity of translation possibilities.  All of these possibilities are then connected to the multiple possibilities of the next word, so that the appearance of “sentence” structure is only an illusion that limits the full scope of meaning that a limited number of words create.  

The original texts of the Holy Bible are written in the same manner, but it has become a practice to translate what was written without punctuation and add punctuation to it.  In ways, this pares that which is written down to one important meaning, but in that process it can strip away peripheral meaning that is also intended to be read.  This is how learning to read Nostradamus actually adds to how one can read the books of the Holy Bible, because although each book has different writers (just as Nostradamus is the writer of The Prophecies) all books are from the same higher source.  This source cannot be limited by punctuation in the way “normal” syntax has been developed to restrict language to a narrowed point of focus.  This means punctuation present anywhere in The Prophecies is for direction purposes only, never to restrict the verbiage.

With this perspective grasped, one can then see the colon at the end of the last series, following the word “Savior,” as a symbol indicating a clarification follows, which is then found to be a direct quote attributed to Jesus.  It is “also” an example of the “truth” that will be found coming in the “future times,” which are the “times” of focus in The Prophecies.  Further, those living in those “future times” must place importance (from capitalization) on “Considering” the meaning of the words that follow the colon, written in Latin, the divine language of Europe.  

The first series contains four words, which as “Nolite sanctum dare canibus.”  As a whole, this must be seen as a “truth.”  Still, each word must be understood individually, with the word “Nolite” recognized as a capitalized word, thus bearing a level of importance that adds to the translation.  The word “Nolite” is actually derived from the negative (ne) being applied to the word “volo,” becoming “nolo.”  This root word means “that not to will, that not to wish, and/or that not to want.”  The “-ite” ending (“Nol-ite) makes the word take on the form of the second person plural active imperative, meaning a plural “you” is implied, thus making the translation become, “You be unwilling.”  This is an important understanding that must be grasped.

The quote from Matthew 7:6 is one of Jesus’ instructions given to the people who came to listen to him give his “sermon on the mount.”  These instructions began with Matthew chapter five, and lasted until the end of Matthew chapter seven (29 verses alone in chapter seven, according to the KJV).  This means Jesus was speaking to the “multitude” (from Matthew 5:1, KJV) that came to hear him speak.  These can then be seen as the first Christians, as they were the first to hear the words of Jesus (as a Christ).  

The capitalization shows the importance of speaking to Christians today, in the second person.  That becomes a way of personally recognizing all of “you” who admit to this “religion,” but with the capitalization pointing directly to “You,” the reader of this, and the reader of the preface to The Prophecies.  “You” are collectively and individually expected to “be unwilling” to accept the changes stated prior.  This comes from your admitted “Savior,” and he tells “You” this in this letter, just as Jesus told those who saw him speak personally, who physically heard his voice.  It is an important instruction about what “not” to “be willing” to allow.  Further, as an example of “truth” for what will provide “Salvation” from the “Savior,” “Nolite” is telling “You” what the “Savior” is “unwilling” to accept from “You.”

The next word is “sanctum,” which is either a masculine or neuter singular form of the noun “sanctus,” which means, “that which is sacred, saintly, divine, pious, made inviolable, venerable, blessed, holy, and august [awe inspiring].”  As a statement by itself, this word is a reflection on Jesus, Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit (the Trinity), as only that in connection with Yahweh can “truly” be deemed “holy.”  This means the words spoken by Jesus were “divine,” while Jesus was “saintly” as a son of man.  Still, it means each individual (“You”) is capable of being likewise “saintly,” as long as one maintains his or her own connection to Yahweh and Jesus, though the heart centre, which then leads the mind.  This element is completely under the control of the individual, who needs “to be willing” to accept this connection to lead one’s life.  

When one observes the Greek presentation of Matthew 7:6, the verse can be written in Aramaic form as, “me didomi ho hagios ho kuon.”  This can literally translate to state, “God forbid you [pl.] to give that (most) holy to the dogs.”  The element of “willingness” is implied through the word “me,” which can mean, “any but (that), forebear, God forbid, lack, lest, neither, never, no (wise in), none, nor, (can-)not, nothing, that not, un(-taken), or without” (according to Strong’s).  This makes the Latin’s presentation of the word “Nolite” make the same negative statement, telling what should “not” be attempted, while adding the concept of “will.”

The word “will” is associated not only with the decision of an individual, as in possessing the “gift” of free-will, but also the future projection of what “will” happen, based on that free-will.  The future is thus brought about by “will,” either from desired effort, or by allowing the desired efforts of others to supersede an individual’s, “willingly”.  As such, “Nolite” is projecting a warning about the future, stating that one must “Not be willing” to allow in the future one’s “will” to endanger one’s connection with that which is “most holy.”  

The Greek quote, presented in the original text of a first-hand witness to the sermon on the mount, does not include this element of “will” as a future warning.  It presents it in the present tense, second person, as an address to those friends who have gathered to hear Yahweh’s instructions from their Messiah.  At the time, it stated what to do then, in order to follow the Messiah’s lead, and to achieve the salvation of Heaven.  Still, what was good during that present time remains good for all future times, making the presence of “Nolite” an addition that preserves those instructions for future generations.  Thus, the purpose of writing a book like Matthew’s is to recall those lessons Jesus taught, in the present, for those later to come, in the future.

Following “Nolite” is the word “sanctum,” which is written in the masculine Accusative singular form, from the root word “santus.”  It is also the same representation of that root in the neuter gender, in both the Vocative and Nominative cases, in the singular number.  In all cases, “sanctum” is shown as the subject, with the Accusative making it the direct object of the verb, which comes next, “dare.”  As the direct object of the verb, the word “Nolite” is leading one to the subject, as what one should “be unwilling” “to give” (the meaning of “dare”).  The most general meaning of “sanctum” is “holy,” meaning that which is determined to be “holy” should “not be willed to give.”  This is a statement about “holiness not being” something anyone but Yahweh can “give.”

When “sanctum” is read as a singular statement, it places focus on that which is “holy, saintly, sacred, pious, divine, made inviolable [invincible], venerable, blessed, and august [awe inspiring, majestic].”  As the second word following “Savior,” this is the “truth” of Yahweh and Jesus.  The word makes the statement that the “holy” does indeed exist.  However, when linked to the capitalized word “Nolite,” it acts to make a statement about what the “holy, saintly, divine, and sacred” does “not will to be.”  This projects that which is “holy” as being “not” by purposeful design to be unholy (or as stated prior what “will be finding” to come, recognized as “so evil, bad, wrong, sick or harmful” (from “si mal”).  As such, the “divine is unwilling” to accept anyone who willingly accepts this unholy state of being.

The third word is “dare,” which has been stated to mean, “to give.”  It is the present active infinitive of the Latin verb “do,” meaning, “to give, to offer, to render, to yield, to surrender, and to concede.”  From seeing this full scope of meaning, it can then be seen how “to give” is more in line with “giving up,” or “giving in.”  While it does imply the act of giving, which can include a goodhearted gift, the overall theme is of surrendering, with some element of sacrifice “willfully” done.

The final word in this first series of Latin is “canibus,” which is the Dative case plural number for the word “canis.”  The word “canis” literally means, “dog, hound,” but as a reference to persons it indicates “abuse.”  As a slang word for those who throw dice, a “canis” is the worst possible roll.  Thus, the term literally means “to dogs,” as the recipient of action, but the word acts metaphorically to indicate the worst type of human beings, whose “abuses” are sensed, if not known.

When one takes the literal as having viable meaning, one knows “dogs” are animals.  While they may be man’s best friend, lovable as pets, able to perform as trained workers, and showing some degree of intelligence to understand human beings and each other, they are incapable of differentiating “holy” from “unholy.”  While “dogs” are excellent companions to children and the elderly, and act to save lives without being told to do so, some even sacrificing their own lives to save a family (human) member, “dogs” must be seen as guided by angels in such actions.  A “dog,” given the company of humans (in a loving environment), will innately protect the pack.  However, many “dogs” are trained to protect and attack on command, with others bred and trained to fight other “dogs,” with many unprovoked attacks reported, where “dogs” are known to have maimed and killed innocent human beings, who were in some unmarked territory protected by those “dogs.” Therefore, as a literal word attached to the flow of “You be unwilling 
that which is holy to surrender,” “to dogs” can only mean “to animals.”

This makes “to dogs” most practical as a metaphor for humans; and in this sense, various statements can be interpreted from that warning.  The least of those is a statement that says, “Do not allow obedience to be seen as saintliness.”  Simply because someone is dedicated to serving “that which is holy,” a servant is symbolically a trained animal, like a service “dog,” who acts on command.  The warning is not “to give” one’s “willingness” to follow a servant, lest one ends up lost.  This interpretation can be understood as matching the path the Roman Catholic Church has taken, simply because of its “willingness to give” the reigns of a whole Church dedicated to Jesus (the Christ via Yahweh) to a human being who did little more than serve the Church and win popularity doing so.  Still, as “dogs” can be led by angels to act to save lives, the matter of poor past popes, who meant no harm in their service, but acted innately while not chosen by Yahweh to act in that capacity, is not the lethal problem the Church faces today.

The lethal problem that this warning best suits, as a writing of eschatology, comes when one sees the symbolism of “abusers” being allowed positions recognized as “sacred.”  When human beings (men) reach heights deemed closer to Yahweh and Jesus, titles of “holiness” (such as, “your eminence”) makes a human appear to be so connected.  When these humans are anything but linked to such “divine” sources, with their leadership of the Church being purposefully to mislead it, the result is all of its followers being willfully led to ruin, following their leaders.  

This degree of “abusers” has surfaced repeatedly over the ages, but it is the focus of The Prophecies to focus on this problem in the “future times” relative to the 16th century.  In this regard, many of the quatrains link to tell one story of modern papal corruption (20th century), showing when the Church became incapable of connecting to Yahweh again.  This condition will have had a top-down effect, making it a poisonous guidance become a constant creeping of disease, spreading to restrict the goodness maintained by individuals within the Church.  

Those good servants are mere “dogs” who will not bite the hand of their true master, who is not Jesus, but a corrupt “abuser” that has risen to head the Church.  The impact of the warning then has special merit as the Roman Catholic Church prepares “to be willing to award the title of saint to” Pope John Paul II.  The quatrains of The Prophecies tell of him being but one of several “dogs” who murdered Pope John Paul I.  The man named Karol Józef Wojtyła was primarily a political “dog,” to both Nazis and Communists, and never truly connected to Jesus.  As part of a conspiracy, including the current pope (Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger), who took part in the murder and cover-up, John Paul II was made to appear most “pious.”  It has been Ratzinger (a “dog”) who has completed the beatification of John Paul II (another “dog”), soon to make Wojtyla a “saint,” based on lies.   All involved in this corruption have pretended to serve the Church, while only serving the god of evil and their own thirsts for power, control, and wealth.  

Understanding this makes this warning, quoted from Jesus (a Christ by Yahweh), written into The Prophecies, state a sign of the End Times.  Those “future times” will be when Christians will “be unwilling to stop dogs from giving abusers that which is saintly.”  By being written in Latin, as linked to a quote
from Jesus (who is the true author of The Prophecies and The Revelation), this is a statement about the “future times” when “religion” can no longer be trusted to lead the lambs to safety.  Instead, when that which is “holy” is led by “wolves” (abusive canines) the lambs will be led to slaughter.  That is a major theme developed in the quatrains, and repeated throughout the preface and the explanation letter to Henry.  The Latin signifies the source as “divine,” and the storyline acts to become the letter to the seven churches about where the corruption has crept in.

When this element is seen, as prefacing a major element contained in the quatrains of The Prophecies, one can also see how this Latin reference (from Jesus) goes further.  It also acts as a statement that warns of corruption that will be known in “reigns” (the remaining royal line of significance – the British Crown) and “sects” (the last attempts by the common man to right its experiment gone wrong – American democracy).  Those modern stories (in the 20th and 21st centuries, stretched over decades for each) also tell of murders and cover-ups, which show how Jesus-led influences will have forever been lost.  Both of these stories is developed in the quatrains of The Prophecies and explained in the letter to Henry.  Overall, it shows how the trinity of influences watches over the people (the shepherds for the lambs), “reigns, sects, & religions,” but the safety of that protection is dependent on all of those three groups maintaining a connection to Yahweh and Jesus.  

When all three become “diametrically opposite” to the way they were intended to be, mankind will be set to fail.  Those will be the signs of the times.  All these corruptions, individually and collectively, will occur (begin) in one century of time (the 20th).  Moreover, the times reflect the degradation of positions that require “holy” representation to protect the people, with power wielded for that purpose.  However, the warning is how humanity should never want to find this power “willed, through surrender, to dogs.”

By seeing how this quote from Jesus acts to overview The Prophecies, thus appropriate to be placed in a preface, one can then begin to move through the remaining three series of words in this Latin segment.  The previous section, in French, stated the theme of change that would come (and has since come) over the world to threaten its survival.  This would involve the separation of beneficial “religions” from the people, while elevating commoners to the thrones of kings.  The Latin of the first part states a negative warning, about how one must be “unwilling to surrender holy leadership positions to abusers.”  The second part takes one further into the metaphor of the animal kingdom, with a second negative warning.

In the second series in this section, Nostradamus wrote, “nec mittaris margaritas ante porcos.”  This can translate to state syntactically, “neither cast ye your pearls before swine,” as the King James translation shows; but this misses the focus of the root verb “mitto.”  

The verb “mitto” is the active present infinitive, which can translate to mean, “to send, dispatch; to send as a gift; to fling; to shed; to utter; to let go, release, give up; to dismiss, discharge; and/or [to pass over] a subject.” The form presented, “mittaris,” is the 2nd person singular present passive subjunctive, making it bear the meaning, “you (plural) may be sent; you may be released; you may be cast; and/or you may be disregarded.”  The passive voice means the action of the verb is done to the subject, which then becomes “pearls.”  This means a better translation can be stated as, “nor may you (plural) be sent as gifts pearls in front of pigs.”   

With this translation, it is easier to see how the first negative warning, “not be willing to give that which is holy,” is balanced by a second negative warning of what “not to give.”  One can “give neither,” as it has not been ordained one’s right of ownership, making it possible to wrap something of Yahweh’s up and serve it to some ones unworthy of Yahweh’s blessings.  The first part warned, “not to recognize abusers as holy,” and this second part means, “not to bow down and worship the swine” who lord over you (plural).

Again, just as with “to dogs,” one has to understand the literal and metaphorical definitions of “porcos,” which is the Accusative case (plural), meaning “to swine.”  Literally, a “pig” is an animal that will eat both plants and meat (omnivore), just as humans.  They are most known as domesticated animals, herded by those who raise pigs as a flesh crop.  In the wild, they are known as boars.  Pigs are said to be highly intelligent, and easily trained to do tricks.  They are susceptible to lung diseases, such as influenza, and they have such a high level of parasites and worms in their intestinal tracts, undercooked pork can transmit diseases carried by pig parasites to humans.  It is commonly known that pigs live in sties and enjoy wallowing in mud, and rooting in the dirt.  In the Old Testament, pigs were specifically designated as “unclean,” and the children of Israel were forbidden from eating pork.

As a metaphorical animal, “swine” are recognized as people who are “brutish and contemptible.”  When someone is called a “pig,” it is understood this is a slur, with the meaning being, “greedy, filthy, or ravenous.”  When one realizes this use of “swine” is in Latin, and thus relative to biblical interpretation, the warning is restating the commandment against coming in contact with such unclean beings.  This can then be seen as a warning against one becoming something of value “before the unholy.”  

In the recount of Jesus healing a madman in Garasenes, demons resided inside the man, to such a degree his name was “Legions” meaning there were so many.  These demons sensed Jesus approaching and requested he allow them to leave the men and enter “pigs” grazing nearby.  Jesus allowed this “exorcism,” but once the demons were in the “pigs” they immediately ran and jumped off a cliff, into a lake where they all drowned.  The people who raised “pigs” (Gentiles) asked Jesus to leave their region, which he did.  The man saved requested to go with Jesus, but he was told to remain and tell others about what had happened.  

This story mirrors the Old Testament laws relative to those who have had contact with “pigs,” as those who have touched “pigs” must never have contact with the king sitting judgment over that unclean person.  To be found “giving oneself as a pearl found before a pig,” as a precious jewel worn around the neck of an unclean beast, one has become unclean, and therefore unworthy of coming in contact with the King.  Therefore, the warning is that “you (plural) may not be sent as pearls before swine.”  

Jesus is the true “pearl” and evil bows before Yahweh’s Son, knowing it will be found where it should not be, causing evil to beg for escape.  Jesus made no contact with that evil, or the “swine” who took on those maddening sprites.  Jesus left that area where people lived with “swine,” because he would not become a teacher of “pearls” of wisdom to unclean beasts who knew nothing of the One God.  It is a lesson “not” to attempt to act as representing Yahweh, when one is standing “before the contemptible.”  

The third part of this Latin section states yet another negative warning, which is “ne conculent pedibus.”  This translates syntactically to say, “lest (or that not) all (plural) may be trampled under foot (or treated with contempt) to feet [as something given – Dative case].”  In this, it must be recognized that the implied meaning of “feet,” in the act of “trampling,” makes the actual presence of the word “feet” seemingly redundant.  Thus, the element of “feet” must be more closely examined, as if the saying were, “lest treated with contempt to feet.”

The meaning of “foot” (Latin “pes”) must be seen as the opposite of “head,” and thereby the lowest part of a being, rather than the highest.  This means the warning is against a negative consequence (“lest”), which is the feared state one does “not” seek to be found, which is furthest away from the Godhead.  Finding “conculcent” to be the present active subjunctive form of the verb “concluco,” it is a “would be, could be, should be” state of the infinitive, “to trample under foot,” or “to treat with contempt.”  With “pedibus” seen as the Dative case, plural number, where the Dative shows that which is given to, one must see “to feet” as a result.  

The series then transitions from a  warning of what “not” to allow, to the possibility (“may be trampling under foot,” or “may be treating with contempt”) of actions that treat others as inferior or lesser in value, the result of those possibilities is having been given the lowest level possible (“to feet”).  When this is seen as following (a comma indicates a separation of sequence) the prior warning, “neither you (plural) be sent as pearls before swine,” the consequence of such allowances is “that not” heeded leads (“lest”) to one becoming a “pig,” and seeing others as oneself, in a lessened state of “contempt.”  One has then lower “to feet” status, or “base” in nature.

The final part of the section of Latin states, “conversi dirumpant vos.”  This can translate to state, “turning around again they destroying you,” or as has been translated in the King James translation, “turn and rend you.”  This syntactical translation gives a picture of a danger of being destroyed, and (again, through the adherence to syntax) makes this a result be “should” one “cast pearls before swine.”  As stated previously, “pigs” are omnivorous, and (especially in the wild) have been known to attack humans, as well as eat the flesh of dead humans.  Therefore, the meaning of a severe personal danger is to be understood, but that is only on a secondary level.

The primary meaning comes from completely understanding the meaning of each word, individually, before linking them together.  As such, the King James Version has the Latin word “et” to translate, which is a conjunction that directly connects the last three words with the prior series of words.  In the Nostradamus version in the preface, an ampersand is found replacing “et.”  An ampersand only serves as a typical conjunction (like “et”) in a secondary sense.  The primary meaning of an ampersand is to introduce something of importance.  This means that following the second warning, “not you trampling under foot to base,” an importance is then introduced through the word “converse,” which means more than simply “turning again.”

The word “conversi” has been translated as a misspelling of the word “conversio,” which means, “to turn again.”  It is not a form of that verb.  Instead, it is the plural subjunctive perfect (as well as pluperfect) form of the verb “converto.”  The change can be minor, as both verbs share a meaning relative to “turning.”  The translation is an indication of the present, relative to the past or the future.  As such, it is stating, what “you (plural) had turned,” or “you (plural) turned.”  However, the word “converto” (or “convertere”) has other forms of “turning” that must be considered.

In English, the word “convert” comes from the same Latin root.  When one links the Latin language in The Prophecies to a religious reference (a higher meaning that standard French yields), the word “conversi” becomes a statement about conversion, but not to Christianity, rather away.  This means the ampersand points to an important “turning again,” which is away from the conversion to Christianity, as a new conversion to “religions” that place more emphasis on idolatry, where “dogs” are called “holy,” and “swine” parade along with the “pearls” of society, and all the riches power brings.  Those of “you” (plural) who will be found to “have had converted,” or those in the act of “converting,” will be “destroyed.”

As a way of restating the theme of The Prophecies, the ampersand indicates an important “changing” foreseen, relative to “dogs” and “swine” taking the “reigns” of nations, as the “sects” of philosophy replaces the “religions” of the people.  This “changing” is what will cause what “they may be breaking to pieces,” or “shattering.”  This is the biblical element of the iron rod smashing the potter’s clay.  Without Yahweh’s protection, through the willful acceptance of Jesus, while acting while filled with the Holy Spirit, “they may see the world destroyed” by those lusting for power and its earthly rewards.  However, in the end it will be “you” (plural) who will be part of the fragmentation; as all elements of society will crumble before “you” (plural).