4036 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

The Puzzler, on 11 October 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

I don't think you got the 'point'.

I got the 'yod', or arm .

So Wralda pushed his arm inside them, and then....

http://commons.wikim...aanite_alphabet


.

Edited by Abramelin, 11 October 2012 - 02:03 PM.

[Otharus]

Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE) was a student of
Plato (c. 423 – c. 347 BCE), who was a student of
Socrates (c. 469 – 399 BCE), who was a student of... a woman!
(according to Plato)

Her name was Diotima and she taught Socrates the philosophy of love.

Here is a fragment of Plato's Symposium, which reminds me of an OLB fragment (see below).

(It is not a strong argument for anything (yet), I just share it for now because I think parallels like this are interesting.)

Translation by Benjamin Jowett (1817 – 1893) Source

[207d-e: dialogue Diotima-Socrates]

Nay even in the life of the same individual there is succession and not absolute unity:
a man is called the same,
and yet in the short interval which elapses between youth and age,
and in which every animal is said to have life and identity,
he is undergoing a perpetual process of loss and reparation—
hair, flesh, bones, blood, and the whole body are always changing.
Which is true not only of the body, but also of the soul,
whose habits, tempers, opinions, desires, pleasures, pains, fears,
never remain the same in any one of us,
but are always coming and going;
and equally true of knowledge, and what is still more surprising to us mortals,
not only do the sciences in general spring up and decay,
so that in respect of them we are never the same;
but each of them individually experiences a like change.

(Original Greek text here)

~ ~ ~

OLB original manuscript p.102 lines 9-30 ~ "thet ôthera dél fonre form-lér"

[Dutch translation 1872 Ottema ~ p.141]

Maar doordien zijn leven steeds voortgaat,
zoo kan er ook niets op zijne plaats blijven.
Daarom verwisselen alle geschapene dingen van plaats,
van gedaante en ook van denkwijze.
Daarom mag de aarde zelve, noch eenig schepsel zeggen:
ik ben, maar wel: ik was.
Ook mag geen mensch zeggen: ik denk, maar bloot: ik dacht.
De knaap is grooter en anders als toen hij een kind was.
Hij heeft andere begeerten, neigingen en denkwijze.
De man en vader is en denkt anders als toen hij knaap was.
Even zoo de oude van dagen. Dat weet iedereen.
Bijaldien nu iedereen weet, en moet erkennen, dat hij steeds wisselt,
zoo moet hij ook bekennen, dat hij ieder oogenblik wisselt; ook terwijl hij zegt: ik ben;
en dat zijne denkbeelden veranderen, terwijl hij zegt: ik denk.

[English translation 1876 Sandbach ~ p.141]

but whereas his life is continually progressing,
nothing can remain stationary,
therefore all created things change their locality,
their form, and their thoughts.
So neither the earth nor any other created object can say,
I am; but rather, I was.
So no man can say, I think; but rather, I thought.
The boy is greater and different from the child;
he has different desires, inclinations, and thoughts.
The man and father feels and thinks differently from the boy,
the old man just the same. Everybody knows that.
Besides, everybody knows and must acknowledge that he is now changing,
that he changes every minute even while he says, I am,
and that his thoughts change even while he says, I think.



Diotima by Józef Simmler, 1855

Edited by Otharus, 11 October 2012 - 09:39 PM.

[The Puzzler]

Same website you linked Abe...

"Suspended in mid-air, yod is the smallest of the Hebrew letters, the 'atom' of the consonants, and the form of which all the other letters begin and end.

The first dot with which the scribes start writing a letter, or the last dot that gives the letter it's final form - is the yod.

In the Jewish mystical tradition, yod represents a mere dot, a divine point of energy. Since yod is used to produce all the other letters, and since God uses the letters as the building blocks of creation, yod indicates God's omnipresence.

Yod is considered the starting point of the presence of God in all things - the "spark" of the spirit in all things."
http://www.hebrew4ch...et/Yod/yod.html

Edited by The Puzzler, 12 October 2012 - 02:09 AM.

[Abramelin]

It's always good to wander off to other threads:

(from Caesar's  The Bello Gallico, Book 6) :


(14.1)--The Druids do not go to war, nor pay tribute together with the rest; they have an exemption from military service and a dispensation in all matters.

(14.2) Induced by such great advantages, many embrace this profession of their own accord, and [many] are sent to it by their parents and relations.

(14.3) They are said there to learn by heart a great number of verses; accordingly some remain in the course of training twenty years.

(14.4) Nor do they regard it lawful to commit these to writing, though in almost all other matters, in their public and private transactions, they use Greek characters.


http://www.unexplain...6

Now if we can find an ancient Greek text that says the Celts used characters similar to but not the same as their own, we will be getting somewhere....

.

Edited by Abramelin, 13 October 2012 - 04:59 PM.

[Van Gorp]

Otharus, on 11 October 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE) was a student of
Plato (c. 423 – c. 347 BCE), who was a student of
Socrates (c. 469 – 399 BCE), who was a student of... a woman!
(according to Plato)

Her name was Diotima and she taught Socrates the philosophy of love.

Here is a fragment of Plato's Symposium, which reminds me of an OLB fragment (see below).

(It is not a strong argument for anything (yet), I just share it for now because I think parallels like this are interesting.)

Translation by Benjamin Jowett (1817 – 1893) Source

[207d-e: dialogue Diotima-Socrates]

Nay even in the life of the same individual there is succession and not absolute unity:
a man is called the same,
and yet in the short interval which elapses between youth and age,
and in which every animal is said to have life and identity,
he is undergoing a perpetual process of loss and reparation—
hair, flesh, bones, blood, and the whole body are always changing.
Which is true not only of the body, but also of the soul,
whose habits, tempers, opinions, desires, pleasures, pains, fears,
never remain the same in any one of us,
but are always coming and going;
and equally true of knowledge, and what is still more surprising to us mortals,
not only do the sciences in general spring up and decay,
so that in respect of them we are never the same;
but each of them individually experiences a like change.

(Original Greek text here)

~ ~ ~

OLB original manuscript p.102 lines 9-30 ~ "thet ôthera dél fonre form-lér"

[Dutch translation 1872 Ottema ~ p.141]

Maar doordien zijn leven steeds voortgaat,
zoo kan er ook niets op zijne plaats blijven.
Daarom verwisselen alle geschapene dingen van plaats,
van gedaante en ook van denkwijze.
Daarom mag de aarde zelve, noch eenig schepsel zeggen:
ik ben, maar wel: ik was.
Ook mag geen mensch zeggen: ik denk, maar bloot: ik dacht.
De knaap is grooter en anders als toen hij een kind was.
Hij heeft andere begeerten, neigingen en denkwijze.
De man en vader is en denkt anders als toen hij knaap was.
Even zoo de oude van dagen. Dat weet iedereen.
Bijaldien nu iedereen weet, en moet erkennen, dat hij steeds wisselt,
zoo moet hij ook bekennen, dat hij ieder oogenblik wisselt; ook terwijl hij zegt: ik ben;
en dat zijne denkbeelden veranderen, terwijl hij zegt: ik denk.

[English translation 1876 Sandbach ~ p.141]

but whereas his life is continually progressing,
nothing can remain stationary,
therefore all created things change their locality,
their form, and their thoughts.
So neither the earth nor any other created object can say,
I am; but rather, I was.
So no man can say, I think; but rather, I thought.
The boy is greater and different from the child;
he has different desires, inclinations, and thoughts.
The man and father feels and thinks differently from the boy,
the old man just the same. Everybody knows that.
Besides, everybody knows and must acknowledge that he is now changing,
that he changes every minute even while he says, I am,
and that his thoughts change even while he says, I think.



Diotima by Józef Simmler, 1855

Very interesting Otharus, thnx for sharing.

Now that you are more into philosophy ... maybe you can help.

When actually did the first text of Plat-Ho (high plate, everybody knows that :-) come above the water (or from the shelve).
Is that something you can check by some persons in the faculty who don't need to rely on internet reproductions to check that?

I mean really:

1) discovery of original first hand Plato scriptures (do they exist, that would be a small wonder ;-)
(-> no quote by others).

and/or

2) the first mentionning of Plato in time
(-> so not the alleged earliest scriptures wherein he's mentionned, because many earlier mentionnings are 'found' later)
(-> meaning when did we hear about Plato for the first time, eg if we found a source/copy allegedly dated to 200 BC but found in 14th CE -> 14th CE)

If possible with some small references to where/when/by whom.

Only in your spare time hé Otharus.
Please don't let me put you on a side-track for more important stuff you have to tackle ;-)

Edited by Van Gorp, 13 October 2012 - 10:47 PM.

[the L]

If I even wanted to join your thread I would need month to came where you are. Is there any sum of your research so far...maybe?

[Van Gorp]

The Puzzler, on 12 October 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

Same website you linked Abe...

"Suspended in mid-air, yod is the smallest of the Hebrew letters, the 'atom' of the consonants, and the form of which all the other letters begin and end.

The first dot with which the scribes start writing a letter, or the last dot that gives the letter it's final form - is the yod.

In the Jewish mystical tradition, yod represents a mere dot, a divine point of energy. Since yod is used to produce all the other letters, and since God uses the letters as the building blocks of creation, yod indicates God's omnipresence.

Yod is considered the starting point of the presence of God in all things - the "spark" of the spirit in all things."
http://www.hebrew4ch...et/Yod/yod.html

Just some earlier mentionnings (1614) about the I-OD and the Duytsch language.

[Van Gorp]

the L, on 13 October 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

If I even wanted to join your thread I would need month to came where you are. Is there any sum of your research so far...maybe?

Hi L, Abe/Otharus/Puzzler are the longest participators.  I would miss a whole lot if I would summarize from what i saw :-)
But glad you're also interested.

[Otharus]

Van Gorp, on 13 October 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

When actually did the first text of Plat-Ho (high plate, everybody knows that :-) come above the water (or from the shelve).
[...]
1) discovery of original first hand Plato scriptures (do they exist, that would be a small wonder ;-)
[...]
2) the first mentioning of Plato in time

That is a very good question.

I read somewhere that the oldest manuscripts were from c. 900 CE, but don't know a reference.
If that is true, imagine how much the various copyists may have left out, changed and added!

Someone who thought the texts were important enough to copy, may very well have had some sort of religious or political agenda. He surely will have had more and less favorite parts... (and own ideas about it.)

So how much of it is authentic?!
I guess there will be studies about this.

Of course it's not only the texts that are supposed to be from 'Flatteau' himself, but there was also his famous student Aristotle (aristo-kratos => aristo-telos => purpose, end, goal?) who referred to his teacher, but for his work we have the same question of authenticity.

What I have learned so far is that those works were studied more in the Arab world first, when they were still taboo in the early Christian world.

I will try to find out more (in the spare time ;-).

[Otharus]

Van Gorp, on 13 October 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

Just some earlier mentionnings (1614)...

Can you add the sources of those fragments please, VG?

[Otharus]

the L, on 13 October 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

Is there any sum of your research so far?

Yes it would be good to make our personal summaries.

I think Alewyn Raubenheimer made a good one as one of his last posts here or at Historum.
To compare our different viewpoints would be interesting too, as mine will be different of those by Abe and Puzzler.

When I have more time I will try to make an effort.

For now I will limit myself to this summarizing consideration:

If OLB would be a hoax, this should have become more evident through time, but the opposite is the case.

All classical arguments against authenticity have systematically been refuted.

Abe's main argument, that OLB must be a hoax, because it's authenticity has not been proven is an argument from ignorance;

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. (source: wikipedia)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Abe.
I asked you some time ago to summarize the arguments for your 'verdict'.

[The Puzzler]

Van Gorp, on 13 October 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

Just some earlier mentionnings (1614) about the I-OD and the Duytsch language.

Yeah, I'm staying on OD, after 5+ pages of investigating it.

The Latin appears to say that OD means God, why am I not surprised?

[The Puzzler]

the L, on 13 October 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

If I even wanted to join your thread I would need month to came where you are. Is there any sum of your research so far...maybe?

Quite frankly, you could have come in on the 10,000th page and still been no wiser, after all these pages, we haven't really gone anywhere, except in circles imo - but it's been fun - so feel free to contribute anything.
Just read the Oera Linda Book first imo. http://oeralinda.angelfire.com

Ignore Abe if he says we've already discussed so and so. lol

We might have discussed it but very little answers have been solved. I for one, would enjoy hearing another opinion or view.

Edited by The Puzzler, 14 October 2012 - 02:23 PM.

[The Puzzler]

It does appear that Wralda's might be part of the OD sentence, since there is no full stop after Wraldas and the word OD, as Otharus stated.



So, in saying that:

Wraldas spirit tread inside them.

is what I'd write.

[Abramelin]

The Puzzler, on 14 October 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Quite frankly, you could have come in on the 10,000th page and still been no wiser, after all these pages, we haven't really gone anywhere, except in circles imo - but it's been fun - so feel free to contribute anything.
Just read the Oera Linda Book first imo. http://oeralinda.angelfire.com

Ignore Abe if he says we've already discussed so and so. lol

We might have discussed it but very little answers have been solved. I for one, would enjoy hearing another opinion or view.

The only reason I often said we already discussed this and that is, that sometimes people appear to have forgotten..... they actually discussed it. Now it is not bad to rekindle an old discussion, but at least refer to what has been discussed before.

For those who dropped in late, there is a way of knowing if something has been discussed before (in the archived part -1- of this thread), or even mentioned, and that is what I posted for 'The Mule' a couple of days ago

Google: "keyword(s)" "archived" "oera linda" "unexplained mysteries". All these at same time, and WITH quotation marks.

I just think it's better to first start reading what went on before (on some subtopic), and then come with new ideas and insights and finds.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 14 October 2012 - 02:56 PM.