Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
11638 replies to this topic

#9406    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010

Posted 12 January 2012 - 08:48 AM

View PostKnul, on 12 January 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

I think Dutch weer (again, back) = whither. So the sentence would read: thju moder nildet wither ha.On the other hand Dutch weren = wera. Are there other possibilities ? I think of the meaning [ge]weren = ergens mee instemmen, akkoord gaan, Eng. to agree, German gewaehren, billigen, eiverstanden sein.
WITHER and WR are both used in that meaning.

In other fragments WR also means again/back:

[067/22]
WILST WR FRY WSA ND VNDER MINA RD ND HODA LVA. TJN UT THEN. WPNE SKILUN THI WRDA. ND IK SKIL WKA O.ER THI.
Do you want to be free again... (etc.)

[153/09]
THRVMBE NIL HI NNE MODER WR H
Therefore he doesn't want to have a mother back/again

WR is a multifunctional word as it can also mean:

- "was"; the past tense singular of "to be" (german: war)
- the root of "to defend" (dutch: weer)
- where (dutch: waar)
- true (dutch: waar)
- in expression INA WR; busy (dutch: in de weer)

From the context, it's clear that in the fragment I posted, it means back/again twice.


#9407    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,220 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 12 January 2012 - 09:28 AM

You can go with whatever you like but I wouldn't write off what I said - wer-a as having been wer-ha once, to be liable. In that sentence it's not wer it's wer-ha.

Quote

OLB, original manuscript [page 079/ line 18]
THJU MODER NILDET NAVT WÉR.HA

Dutch: Ottema p.111
De Moeder wilde het niet weren

English: Sandbach p.111; Raubenheimer (2nd edition, 2011) p.369
The mother would not prevent it

Correct translation:

Dutch: De Moeder wilde het niet weer (=terug) hebben

English: The Mother didn't want to have it back


The Mother would not be liable.

This is wer-hed:
wÐr-hê-d 472, wÐr-d, wÆr-d, afries., st. F. (i): nhd. Wahrheit, Wahrhaftigkeit; ne.
truth, truthfulness; Hw.: vgl. anfrk. warheid, as. wârhÐd*, ahd. wõrheit, mnd.
wârhêit, mnl. waerheit; Q.: W, S, AA 197; I.: Lbd. lat. vÐritõs; E.: s. wÐr, *hê-d;
L.: Hh 127b, Rh 1140b, AA 197

As truth, truthfulness, this is a relative word to one form of wer-a, as it meant prove, in other words, to prove your truth, all about that type of thing.

wer-a (3) 16, war-a (4), afries., sw. V. (1): nhd. verteidigen, abwehren; ne. defend;
ÜG.: lat. dÐfendere AB (94, 6); Vw.: s. bi-, *of-; Hw.: s. wer-e-re; vgl. got.
warjan*, an. verja (4), ae. w’rian (1), as. werian* (2), ahd. werien* (1); Q.: E, R,
W, H, B, AB (94, 6), AA 102; E.: germ. *warjan, sw. V., wehren, abhalten,
schützen; idg. *øer- (5), V., schließen, decken, schützen, retten, wehren, abwehren,
Pokorny 1160; W.: nfries. werren, V., verteidigen, abwehren; L.: Hh 127b, Rh
1136b, AA 102
wÐr-a (1) 6, afries., sw. V. (1): nhd. beweisen; ne. prove; Hw.: s. wÐr-ia; vgl. ahd.
wõren*; Q.: R, W, S; E.: germ. *wÐrjan, *wÚrjan, sw. V., beweisen; s. idg. *øer-
(11), *øerý-. Sb., Freundlichkeit, Pokorny 1165; L.: Hh 127b, Rh 1136b

What I said, to be liable, is another wera:
wer-a (2) 1, war-a (3), afries., sw. V. (1): nhd. Gewähr leisten, einstehen; ne. be
liable; Hw.: vgl. ahd. werÐn* (1); Q.: E, AA 102; E.: s. germ. *wera, Sb., Vertrag,
Bündnis; vgl. idg. *øer- (11), *øerý-, Sb., Freundlichkeit, Pokorny 1165; L.: Hh
127b, Rh 1136a, AA 102

All these words would be relative to defending the truth, being liable.

Liable meaning:
liable[lahy-uh-buhl] Adsli·a·ble   /ˈlaɪəbəl/  Show Spelled[lahy-uh-buhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1. legally responsible: You are liable for the damage caused by your action.

Synonyms
1.  obliged, accountable

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/liable

Edited by The Puzzler, 12 January 2012 - 09:30 AM.

"They themselves lie buried in sloth, a strange combination in their nature that the same men should be so fond of idleness, so averse to peace". Tacitus - Germania

#9408    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010

Posted 12 January 2012 - 09:39 AM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 12 January 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

You can go with whatever you like but I wouldn't write off what I said - wer-a as having been wer-ha once, to be liable. In that sentence it's not wer it's wer-ha.
It's possible that all those words are somehow originally related, but let's be practical and to the point.

How would you translate this then (page 79):

Posted Image

Give it your best shot!

:tu:


#9409    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,220 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 12 January 2012 - 09:58 AM

View PostOtharus, on 12 January 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

It's possible that all those words are somehow originally related, but let's be practical and to the point.

How would you translate this then (page 79):

Posted Image

Give it your best shot!

:tu:
You were speaking about that word and considered changing it, Knul asked if there might be anything else that could fit and I gave you an alternative, that seems quite likely imo. No need for me to strain my brain trying to translate this whole text right now. That is my alternative word for wer-ha.

I'll give you this though:
nildet will be: n-i-l-l-a 60, n-e-l-l-a, afries., sw. V. (1): nhd. nicht wollen (V.); ne. not want (V.);
Hw.: s. wi-l-l-a (2); Q.: B, E, W, R, H, L 9; E.: s. ne, wi-l-l-a (2); L.: Hh 76a, Rh
944a

navt= not/naught or born/navel

wer-ha= be liable

Could be something like: (the) Mother (did) not want to bear the liability (of it).

Edited by The Puzzler, 12 January 2012 - 10:01 AM.

"They themselves lie buried in sloth, a strange combination in their nature that the same men should be so fond of idleness, so averse to peace". Tacitus - Germania

#9410    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010

Posted 12 January 2012 - 11:01 AM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 12 January 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Could be something like: (the) Mother (did) not want to bear the liability (of it).
Doesn't make sense.


#9411    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,035 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 12 January 2012 - 01:05 PM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 12 January 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

Possibly, but it's not a new idea. Assyriologist Julius Oppert first opened up the can of worms. http://en.wikipedia....i/Julius_Oppert

Posted Image
http://aleximreh.wor...f-goti-in-iran/

The mere suggestion that these Aryans may have been in Sumeria was so destructive to Semitic theories, it has been brushed under the carpet.

You, Abe, you say something should be found from the OLB, everything can be found...

Next to nothing is known about their origins, as no "Gutian" artifacts have surfaced from that time; little information is gleaned from the contemporary sources.[4] Nothing is known of their language either, apart from those Sumerian king names, and that it was distinct from other known languages of the region (such as Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian, Hittite and Elamite).

How convenient (for the anti-Goths were Gutians crowd) NOTHING can be found from the Gutians, no artifacts, nothing.  :ph34r:

Lol, with your quote you prove me right: "Next to nothing is known about their origins", so anyone is free to make up what they want.

And like I posted long ago, it became quite popular in the 19th century to consider Northern Europe the craddle of "Aryan" civilization, no doubt based on or supported by the works of someone like Oppert.

And this, "Ingvi's-son" as the explanation for the name of one of their kings... Check the Old Norse dictionary for something like "shush" meaning "son". There's nothing even close to that word meaning "son".

Anyone can write a Wiki page, and I always check the sources before I quote from it, but you will find no source for that etymology.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 12 January 2012 - 01:06 PM.


#9412    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,035 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 12 January 2012 - 01:51 PM

View PostKnul, on 12 January 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

I think Dutch weer (again, back) = whither. So the sentence would read: thju moder nildet wither ha.On the other hand Dutch weren = wera. Are there other possibilities ? I think of the meaning [ge]weren = ergens mee instemmen, akkoord gaan, Eng. to agree, German gewaehren, billigen, eiverstanden sein.

Menno, I just read you transliterated the sentence Otharus started about like this:

Thju Moder wildet navt wrha (OLB page 79)

http://rodinbook.nl/...paginering.html

I guess that -w- instead of an -n- in 'wildet' was a typo.


#9413    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010

Posted 12 January 2012 - 01:57 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 12 January 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Menno, I just read you transliterated the sentence Otharus started about like this:

Thju Moder wildet navt wrha (OLB page 79)

http://rodinbook.nl/...paginering.html

I guess that -w- instead of an -n- in 'wildet' was a typo.
Plus wr and ha are separated by a dot in the manuscript.


#9414    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,035 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 12 January 2012 - 03:39 PM

The next writer, Edred Thorsson (real name Stephen E. Flowers) wrote a book about runes, their history and use:

Runelore: a handbook of esoteric runology - Edred Thorsson

http://books.google....horsson&f=false

I once bought the book because I was interested in Vikings and their writing, not because of the 'divination' stuff.

OK, now read Page 57/58 (Fig. 4.1: 'Hex' sign ) and page 122 (about the 'hagalaz' rune / Fig. 9.1).

I read the book, but nowhere did he mention the OLB.

Posted Image
Posted Image


+++++

EDIT:

What he has to say about the origin of the runes is also quite interesting:

Posted Image

Here a Wiki about that Negau helmet:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Negau_helmet

.

Edited by Abramelin, 12 January 2012 - 04:17 PM.


#9415    Knul

Knul

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Joined:08 May 2011

Posted 12 January 2012 - 09:55 PM

View PostOtharus, on 12 January 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

Plus wêr and ha are separated by a dot in the manuscript.

I have corrected wildet in nildet, though the mistake is Ottema's (see: 2nd edition page 110 line 5). In fact I am not allowed to correct his text, but in this case the mistake was clear. In fact I was bothered about the dot in the word wêr.ha as it should indicate a single word or verb, because this dot does not indicate the end of a sentence.  The verb could be wêr.ha = waarhebben, Eng. acknowledge, accept, agree with. Otharus did not comment on this.  The matter has been discussed before and then I accepted Otharus view, but now there is some doubt. In the example 153/09 lacks the dot.

Edited by Knul, 12 January 2012 - 10:04 PM.


#9416    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,220 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 13 January 2012 - 04:13 AM

View PostOtharus, on 12 January 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

Doesn't make sense.
It makes perfect sense or I wouldn't have said it.

The mother would not accept the responsibility or liability of their return so didn't want them back.

"They themselves lie buried in sloth, a strange combination in their nature that the same men should be so fond of idleness, so averse to peace". Tacitus - Germania

#9417    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,035 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 13 January 2012 - 03:17 PM

View PostKnul, on 12 January 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

I have corrected wildet in nildet, though the mistake is Ottema's (see: 2nd edition page 110 line 5). In fact I am not allowed to correct his text, but in this case the mistake was clear. In fact I was bothered about the dot in the word wr.ha as it should indicate a single word or verb, because this dot does not indicate the end of a sentence.  The verb could be wr.ha = waarhebben, Eng. acknowledge, accept, agree with. Otharus did not comment on this.  The matter has been discussed before and then I accepted Otharus view, but now there is some doubt. In the example 153/09 lacks the dot.

Instead of correcting Ottema's text, you could add notes to show where he went wrong?


#9418    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010

Posted 13 January 2012 - 03:48 PM

View PostKnul, on 12 January 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

I was bothered about the dot in the word wr.ha as it should indicate a single word or verb, because this dot does not indicate the end of a sentence.
The verb could be wr.ha = waarhebben, Eng. acknowledge, accept, agree with.
Otharus did not comment on this.
The matter has been discussed before and then I accepted Otharus view, but now there is some doubt.
In the example 153/09 lacks the dot.
Dots are not always used consequently in the text, in fact, the spelling has much variety anyway.

In my opinion, the dot here can mean two things:

- the copyist wrote the words too closely together and decided to seperate them with a dot
- the combination was indeed used as a seperable verb (samengesteld werkwoord); weer-hebben = weer-krijgen = terug-krijgen (like weer-spreken, weg-lopen etc.)

Anyway, from the context, it's quite obvious (imo) that the sentence says that the Mother didn't want to have the Denmarks back.


#9419    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,400 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010

Posted 13 January 2012 - 03:59 PM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 13 January 2012 - 04:13 AM, said:

It makes perfect sense or I wouldn't have said it.
Ofcourse it must have made some sort of sentence to you.

I should have said that it made less sense to me than WR.HA = weer-hebben = have back (retrieve).

You must be extremely intelligent, but when I invited you to try and translate that fragment, I highly overestimated you.


#9420    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,035 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 13 January 2012 - 04:05 PM

What I have been wondering about throughout this thread is that no other example of the OLB script has been found anywhere, except in the OLB itself.

Did these northern Europeans have a script? Did they write?

According to a former post of mine here, one of the earliest Germanic sentences (on the Negau helmet, 300 BCE) was written in Etruscan.

And then this (runes):

Cornelius Tacitus, Germany and its Tribes (chapter 10)
Alfred John Church, William Jackson Brodribb, Ed
.

Augury and divination by lot no people practise more diligently. The use of the lots is simple. A little bough is lopped off a fruit-bearing tree, and cut into small pieces; these are distinguished by certain marks, and thrown carelessly and at random over a white garment. In public questions the priest of the particular state, in private the father of the family, invokes the gods, and, with his eyes towards heaven, takes up each piece three times, and finds in them a meaning according to the mark previously impressed on them. If they prove unfavourable, there is no further consultation that day about the matter; if they sanction it, the confirmation of augury is still required. For they are also familiar with the practice of consulting the notes and the flight of birds. It is peculiar to this people to seek omens and monitions from horses. Kept at the public expense, in these same woods and groves, are white horses, pure from the taint of earthly labour; these are yoked to a sacred car, and accompanied by the priest and the king, or chief of the tribe, who note their neighings and snortings. No species of augury is more trusted, not only by the people and by the nobility, but also by the priests, who regard themselves as the ministers of the gods, and the horses as acquainted with their will. They have also another method of observing auspices, by which they seek to learn the result of an important war. Having taken, by whatever means, a prisoner from the tribe with whom they are at war, they pit him against a picked man of their own tribe, each combatant using the weapons of their country. The victory of the one or the other is accepted as an indication of the issue.

http://www.perseus.t...xt:1999.02.0083


And Greek:

The Gallic War (De Bello Gallico) by Julius Caesar
Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb
Book I Chapter 29: March of the Helvetii. Census of the Helvetii.[58 BC]


In the camp of the Helvetii, lists were found, drawn up in Greek characters, and were brought to Caesar, in which an estimate had been drawn up, name by name, of the number which had gone forth from their country of those who were able to bear arms and likewise the boys, the old men, and the women, separately.

http://romansonline....cID=Dbg_Bk01_29

So, we do have examples/indications of the use of runes, and of Etruscan and Greek characters.