Guest guest Posted May 1, 2004 Report Share Posted May 1, 2004 Kit, this was all Fagan's opinion and supposition. There have been more recent translations of ancient manuscripts. Also the translators of Project Hindsight and Arhat have written extensive commentaries. These are generally available in the prefaces and introductions to the texts. Unfortunately, most of these small books are out of print, awaiting new editions. I bought the first editions when they were available. Therese At 10:31 PM 4/30/04 -0700, Kit wrote: >Hi Therese... Having read Fagan's writing's, Aries was never the first sign. Do we have to review this again? Historically the original signs were fluvial----do you belive this or not? So Libra not Aries is the first sign of zodiac. There are many differences I know. But no I disagree with Aries being the first sign, it's all toooo conventional which the CHURCH distorted many thousands of years ago. I more align my thinking with Libra being the first sign. Fagan makes a good case which is backed by history and fact. Why haven't we after all these years uncovered the real PENTADES. Surely we can put these clues together. Maybe not. > Aries may have been the first sign at some point in time. It holds no value now. Purely historical in nature, the world is expanding at alarming rate. Clearly it's taking longer for planet's and stars to make revolutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.