Azov...Azoth? Is this the Ideology behind the infamous Battalion?
(media.greatawakening.win)
Cabal History
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
Hello again. Maybe the Sea was named by the people who lived and practiced this religion.
Well Thank you for saying so, I very much appreciate that. And yes we have had some back and forth in regards to another topic. It was another riviting conversation I'll tell you but who knows maybe I made a fan🤷🏻♂️
Not a chance. Read the Wikipedia entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Azov "The name is likely to derive from the settlement of an area around Azov, whose name comes from the Kipchak Turkish asak or azaq 'lowlands'." Do some research before taking the occult plunge.
I guess you cleared it up very well using Wikipedia. Thats a wrap Gentlemen, time to pack it in.
Do you have a better source? No reason to shrug this off; no indication of biased polemic.
There is no "most likely" about correct or wrong. This is what there is...and it has nothing to do with alchemy or the occult. "Azoth" shows up in the sixteenth century, and "Azov" shows up in the 11th century. Gee...it must be a pain in the spleen for your favorite fantasy connection to be a complete bust.
Just because you want it to be so, doesn't mean that it is actually so. You gotta break yourself of that addiction.
You do know that what appears in Wikipedia is the only last edit, by random people, of an entry...right? Always best to check another source or 3 instead of depending solely on what you read on wiki. Wikipedia is about as far lefty/liberal as you can find.
Him and I have a history of this behavior stemming from another post. And the DC Swamp is a lowland, but maybe thats a stretch too.
Likely is the strategic word here. What makes the WIKI referenced likely claim more logical and probable than say: AZOV -> AZOTH? Bias?
I do agree with the notion that more inquiry should be done.
"Likely" implies experience of closely similar cases. Not applicable here. The presumption of innocence (truthfulness or accuracy) applies. You are just using "likely" as a magic word to cover over sheer fancy. But I don't get the impression that you bothered to read the Wiki entry, because you don't acknowledge the various name origins they reviewed. There is NO linguistic path to "azoth" which is only a chemical, and a mythical chemical at that, which reference appears 500 years after "azov."
"There is NO linguistic path to "azoth"" which remains am opinion. perhaps it could be argued an opinion based on a framework that usually works, yet, language is way more flexible.
I am not saying it IS ... it simply refer to the finding of being likely. It is not a magic word. It is a simple observation of fact.
Could be falls short of an IS statement.
Etymology is a problematic field of inquiry. De opinions of these people differ, and changes over time.
The etymological influence of esoteric groups, in the same vein as the development of local language bible translations, or other religious movements have an influence on language is easily underestimated. And that region has seen its share more than others.
To use a wiki page as authoritative is even to my 12 year old son something more than a tall order, and he did not even needed me to come to that conclusion.
So, no, despite your baseless ad hominem, I am not taking sides in this issue other than stating that I see enough room to leave the possibility.