What evidence us there that Novus Ordo Seclorum is motto of Freemasonry. I seriously doubt this in light of the information I found and posted on the Eye of Providence discussion page. Loremaster 18:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

present your evidence here.

Anyone have source for this: "Medieval Christians read in Virgil's poem a prophecy of the coming of Christianity." Thx. Nobs 21:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick [1]. It's pretty standard, and is the the basis of the Divine Comedy. -- Decumanus 21:19, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Ok, here is the explanation coming from someone who has studies latin for three years. seclorum is in the genitive case, plural form. the genitive case is used for the possessive form of a word, therefore, novus ordo seclorum can't mean "new order for the ages" or "new secular order" because each would require a different case, i.e. not the genetive. Furthermore, the latin word seclorum does not translate to "secular", despite the resemblance. It translates to "of the centuries", of the "generations", or "of the ages". Bonus Onus July 9, 2005 02:38 (UTC)

That is academic, and of an earlier period of Latin. It is clear that to the foudning fathers it meant "secular", because by that time the word meant secular even in Latin works, and the word "secular" was derived directly from it !

• I'll buy that for a dollar. Good edit, BO. Fernando Rizo 9 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)

This was on the article page, but really belongs here:

Possible correction:

Quoted from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Eleventh Edition:

secular

ORIGIN - ME (Middle English): senses 1 and 2 from OFr. (Old French) seculer, from L. (Latin) saecularis, from saeculum 'generation', used in Christian L. to mean 'the world'; senses 3, 4, and 5 from L. (Latin) saecularis 'relating to an age or period'.

Therefore, they are indeed all related, so it is not merely an assumption that seclorum has secular in it's meaning.

But it does not mean "secular" in classical Latin. See Lewis and Short. I see this unfact has come back from answers.com, which is a mirror of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Answers.com. Septentrionalis 00:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, "By circumscribing the 6 pointed Star of David over the pyramid, 5 of the 6 apices (the 6th being the 'All-seeing eye'), point to the letters spelling M-A-S-O-N. (disputed — see talk page)". What part is being disputed, and based on what evidence? If someone doesn't answer soon, I'll remove the disputed tag. Superm401 | Talk 05:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the pointing. A six-pointed star points near, but not at the letters; in fact, most of the points miss the letters entirely. Look at a dollar bill if you have one to hand. Also (thank you for reminding me) the order of the letters. Septentrionalis 04:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless one points to a notable third-party description of this conspiracy, which asserts its notability, this stuff must be deleted. mikka (t) 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think the existence of the theory should be mentioned, whatever its factuality; as long as it is clearly separated from the consensus parts of the article. After all, we describe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Septentrionalis 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also see no evidence that the Tetragrammaton is 72-fold. If anything, it is fourfold. Septentrionalis 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Image:Tetragrammaton-Tetractys.png. AnonMoos 19:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There also those who believe that the freemasons were influenced by an ancient brotherhood from the time of Galileo called the Illuminati. The eye over the pyramid is said to be the eye of illumination. References to "New World Order" for the translation of NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM also point to an Illuminati influence in the early freemasons.

The connection between Galileo and the Illuminati appears to be Dan Brown's invention in Angels and Demons, I do not recall novus ordo seclorum coming into the novel. (It would be implausible; Weishaupt knew Latin, he would not have mistranslated it.) Please supply source. Septentrionalis 16:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has passed unnoticed for quite a long time; though the article states [t]hese theorists assert that the word should be spelt secolorum, and the alleged first o is omitted for occult reasons, the actual term in latin is saeculus (or seculus), -i; the correct form would be seculorum. Taragüí @ 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as the article says, when discussing actual Latin, rather than conspiracy theorists: "Latin prose would normally spell the word saeculorum". Septentrionalis 20:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases, I believe it is customary to add a (sic) notice to the oddly-spelled text. Taragüí @ 10:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling is certainly odd, as Thompson (Thomson?) was a Latin teacher. Given the obvious presence of secret society symbols(Pyramid/Eye) on the dollar bill/Great Seal it is naive to simply swallow the official explanation of the other bits. A hidden alternate meaning is the very stuff of the secret society mentality. The plausibility of theories can be discussed, but to remove them would be inappropriate. --Starlight1955 23:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Article states, "The scholar mistranslates the phrase to "New Secular Order", with no indication that it was a mistranslation in the story, despite the author's claim in a foreword that the information in the story is completely accurate." In the book I have, the forward states that "references to all works of art, tombs, tunnels, and atchitecture in Rome are entirely factual (as are their exact locations). They can still be seen today." It doesn't say that everything in the book is 'completely accurate." Obviously, as a work of fiction, there are creative licenses, but this sentence suggests that the author believes the book to be entirely fact when Mr. Brown has stated on his web site (and in many interviews) that "each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations." http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html --66.30.84.242 04:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe that New Secular Order is a correct translation. I wouldn't translate Novus Ordo Mundi to what people believe to be the New World Order. Mundi is something physical, such as dirt or Earth, when secular is worldly as opposed to holy. If there were a grand conspiracy, they would control the people of the world, and not the dirt; they also wouldn't want you to translate your own Latin.—Slipgrid 15:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AH HA! Latin isn't commonly taught in schools today ... they don't want you to translate your own latin. Which must be PROOF of the conspiracy. They don't want you to know! Damn those Masono-communist Illuminati Anti-Christian Democrats and their conspiracy of seclorism!... now where did I put my tin foil hat. Blueboar 21:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC) (obviously just kidding folks)[reply]

>>>>Although latin isn't teached in school regulary, everybody is able to buy a latin dictionary and to translate. So Blueboar, smooth down.

>>>>The latin word for world: there is more than mundi: orbi, terrarum, etc. the word saeclorum can mean time, generation, age, BUT ALSO WORLD. You can find it in every good latin dictionary.

See a pretty good Latin dictionary here: That sense is Christian, ecclesiastical, and Vulgar Latin; indeed the first citation is Jerome. Reading that sense into Vergil is an anachronism; asserting that a group of enlightened eighteenth century minds did so is preposterous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Latin isn't that good, or I'd fix it myself, but I'm sure that the translation of Virgil's Eclogue does not include anything about the 3 stooges! Could someone help out and fix things?

I see the section on the conspiracy theory has been removed. While I believe no word of these claims, the section did have the advantage of keeping this stuff out of the rest of the article; I hope we don't need it back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it had no sources or references, not because of what it said. I have no problem with someone returning the information or recreating the section... as long as they include citations to reliable sources when they do so. Blueboar 12:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The advantages of having it were largely tactical; it was a summary of the POV stuff that kept being put in the header, with a few facts mixed in. Although unsourced, I'm sure none of it was OR; someone has said all of it before. But if we don't need it, I shan't miss it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]