11638 replies to this topic

[Alewyn]

Abramelin, on 02 March 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

If the Middel Sea is nothing but the Med throughout the OLB , then there is something wrong in the description of the extense of Frya's empire (Aster Sea in the direction of the morning, Middle Sea in the direction of the evening). The only people who can say the Med is in the direction of the evening are those living in Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. Some say the word "Europe" comes from a Semitic word meaning "west" (erev), others say it was a Greek word meaning "west" while Asia was a Greek word for east. But maybe they are all wrong, and Europe is an ancient word meaning North??

No Abe, there is nothing wrong with the OLB’s description.

Consider the following sketch (in edition 2 of my book):

Here I show the present day sunrise and sunset as observed from Amsterdam.

At the summer solstice (June), the sun rises in a north-easterly direction and sets in a north-westerly direction. (Longest day and shortest night).

At the winter solstice (December), the sun rises in a south-easterly direction and sets in a south-westerly direction (shortest day and longest night).

The OLB, however, says that “before the bad times came” the sun rose over the Baltic Sea (N to NE?) and set over the Mediterranean (S to SW?). At a first glance this seems like an error.



The OLB, however, also says that “before the bad times came, the sun rose higher” and Europe was warmer (they could bake their grain in the sun’s rays). This could only be true if the earth’s orientation relative to the sun was different before the disaster which, according to the OLB, lasted 3 years.

I have previously quoted from the “Book of Enoch” which described how the earth “was thrown of its pillar(s)” and “the earth became inclined”. The book described earthquakes and a loud noise (impact?) that was heard “from the extremities of the earth to the extremities of heaven”.

Now we find the “Potsdam-Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung” (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) in Germany, headed by Prof. Dr. Martin Claussen saying that “The change from the mid-Holocene climate to that of today was initiated by changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of Earth's axis”.

Admittedly, they do not say that this change in the earth’s orbit and axial tilt happened suddenly. In fact, they are not certain whether this happened over thousands of years or over a few centuries. The OLB and the “Book of Enoch”, however, describe a very sudden event.

Consider the following 2 sketches. The first merely serves to illustrate a top which continue to spin around its axis even if it changes its orbit and inclination. In the second sketch I merely tried to show how this principle can be applied to earth.




I maintain that the OLB is correct. The anomaly in the OLB re the sun setting over the Mediterranean and the"sun rose higher" can only be explained by a change in earth’s orbit and/or axial tilt.

How could anyone in the 19th century have known that earths axial tilt and orbit changed during the mid- Holocene? To me this is overwhelming evidence that the OLB is not a 19th century fabrication. It is the “smoking gun” if you wish.

Edited by Alewyn, 02 March 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[Alewyn]

Otharus, on 02 March 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

The link had "http://" twice.
Just remove one of them.

Thanks Otharus and Abe.
Yes, that was exactly the problem.

[Abramelin]

Alewyn, you said:

"How could anyone in the 19th century have known that earths axial tilt and orbit changed during the mid- Holocene? To me this is overwhelming evidence that the OLB is not a 19th century fabrication. It is the “smoking gun” if you wish."

Well, that's because they didn't know; whatever is supposed to have happened according to the OLB took place at least a 1000 years after the end of the Mid-Holocene:


Mid-Holocene Climatic Optimum
  
This is a somewhat outdated term used to refer to a sub-interval of the Holocene period from 5000-7000 years ago during which it was once thought that the earth was warmer than today. We now know that conditions at this time were probably warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the extratropics of the Northern Hemisphere. This summer warming appears to have been due to astronomical factors that favoured warmer Northern summers, but colder Northern winters and colder tropics, than today (see Hewitt and Mitchell, 1998; Ganopolski et al, 1998). The best available evidence from recent peer-reviewed studies suggests that annual, global mean warmth was probably similar to pre-20th century warmth, but less than late 20th century warmth, at this time (see Kitoh and Murakami, 2002).

http://www.realclima...imatic-optimum/

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene" or a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present  day. Terms like the Alti-thermal or Hypsi-thermal or Climatic Optimum have all been used to refer to this warm period that marked the middle of the current interglacial period. Today, however, we know that these terms are obsolete and that the truth of the Holocene is more complicated than originally believed.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...g/holocene.html

[Abramelin]

Alewyn, on 02 March 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

I have previously quoted from the “Book of Enoch” which described how the earth “was thrown of its pillar(s)” and “the earth became inclined”. The book described earthquakes and a loud noise (impact?) that was heard “from the extremities of the earth to the extremities of heaven”.

Now we find the “Potsdam-Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung” (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) in Germany, headed by Prof. Dr. Martin Claussen saying that “The change from the mid-Holocene climate to that of today was initiated by changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of Earth's axis”.

But whatever Enoch was describing, it must have happened many ages before Noah's flood.

As you will remember we spent many pages discussing about the date of that flood or Deluge, but whatever date it was, it must have happened between roughly 2350 and 2200 BC, according to Biblical chronology.

So whatever Enoch witnessed (dream? vision?) happened long before the Flood, and long before the OLB date of 2194 BC.

Enoch appears in Genesis as the seventh of the ten pre-Deluge Patriarchs. Each of the pre-Flood Patriarchs lives for several centuries, has a son, lives more centuries, and dies.

http://en.wikipedia....cestor_of_Noah)

[Alewyn]

Abramelin, on 02 March 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Alewyn, you said:

"How could anyone in the 19th century have known that earths axial tilt and orbit changed during the mid- Holocene? To me this is overwhelming evidence that the OLB is not a 19th century fabrication. It is the “smoking gun” if you wish."

Well, that's because they didn't know; whatever is supposed to have happened according to the OLB took place at least a 1000 years after the end of the Mid-Holocene:


[

Let me rephrase my question.
How could anyone in the 19th century have known that the earth's climate changed from that of the mid-holocene?
Also, how could anyone in the 19th century have known that earth's orbit and axial tilt changed since the mid-holocene?

Edited by Alewyn, 02 March 2012 - 03:08 PM.

[Alewyn]

Abramelin, on 02 March 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

But whatever Enoch was describing, it must have happened many ages before Noah's flood.

The Book of Enoch

Chapter 55
(4) And when that agitation took place; the saints out of heaven perceived it; the pillar of the earth shook from its foundation; and the sound was heard from the extremities of the earth unto the extremities of heaven at the same time.

Chapter 64
In those days Noah saw that the earth became inclined, and that destruction approached.(2) Then he lifted up his feet, and went to the ends of the earth, to the dwelling of his great-grandfather Enoch. (3) And Noah cried with a bitter voice, Hear me; hear me; hear me: three times. And he said, Tell me what is transacting upon the earth; for the earth labours, and is violently shaken. Surely I shall perish with it. (4) After this there was a great perturbation on earth, and a voice was heard from heaven. I fell down on my face, when my great-grandfather Enoch came and stood by me.

Edited by Alewyn, 02 March 2012 - 03:07 PM.

[Swede]

Alewyn, on 02 March 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

No Abe, there is nothing wrong with the OLB's description.

Consider the following sketch (in edition 2 of my book):

Here I show the present day sunrise and sunset as observed from Amsterdam.

At the summer solstice (June), the sun rises in a north-easterly direction and sets in a north-westerly direction. (Longest day and shortest night).

At the winter solstice (December), the sun rises in a south-easterly direction and sets in a south-westerly direction (shortest day and longest night).

The OLB, however, says that "before the bad times came" the sun rose over the Baltic Sea (N to NE?) and set over the Mediterranean (S to SW?). At a first glance this seems like an error.



The OLB, however, also says that "before the bad times came, the sun rose higher" and Europe was warmer (they could bake their grain in the sun's rays). This could only be true if the earth's orientation relative to the sun was different before the disaster which, according to the OLB, lasted 3 years.

I have previously quoted from the "Book of Enoch" which described how the earth "was thrown of its pillar(s)" and "the earth became inclined". The book described earthquakes and a loud noise (impact?) that was heard "from the extremities of the earth to the extremities of heaven".

Now we find the "Potsdam-Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung" (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) in Germany, headed by Prof. Dr. Martin Claussen saying that "The change from the mid-Holocene climate to that of today was initiated by changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of Earth's axis".

Admittedly, they do not say that this change in the earth's orbit and axial tilt happened suddenly. In fact, they are not certain whether this happened over thousands of years or over a few centuries. The OLB and the "Book of Enoch", however, describe a very sudden event.

Consider the following 2 sketches. The first merely serves to illustrate a top which continue to spin around its axis even if it changes its orbit and inclination. In the second sketch I merely tried to show how this principle can be applied to earth.




I maintain that the OLB is correct. The anomaly in the OLB re the sun setting over the Mediterranean and the"sun rose higher" can only be explained by a change in earth's orbit and/or axial tilt.

How could anyone in the 19th century have known that earths axial tilt and orbit changed during the mid- Holocene? To me this is overwhelming evidence that the OLB is not a 19th century fabrication. It is the "smoking gun" if you wish.

Presented this sometime back, but apparently you missed it. To reiterate:


To start with two of your "interpretations":

Climate variability during the present interglacial,
the Holocene, has been rather smooth in comparison
with the last glacial. Nevertheless, there were some
rather abrupt climate changes. One of these changes, the
desertication of the Saharan and Arabian region some 4 -
6 thousand years ago, was presumably quite important for
human society. It could have been the stimulus leading to
the foundation of civilizations along the Nile, Euphrat and
Tigris rivers. Here we argue that Saharan and Arabian deserti
cation was triggered by subtle variations in the Earth's
orbit which were strongly amplified by atmosphere- vegetation
feedbacks in the subtropics. The timing of this transition,
however, was mainly governed by a global interplay
between atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, and vegetation (Emphasis added).

Around 9 ka, the tilt of the Earth's axis was
stronger than today and the time of perihelion was at the
end of July [Berger, 1978]. This led to a stronger insolation
of the Northern Hemisphere during summer which amplied
the African and Indian summer monsoon. However, variations
in orbital parameters through the Holocene are rather
smooth, whereas changes in North African climate and vegetation
were comparatively abrupt [see, e.g., Petit-Maire and
Guo, 1996]. This suggests that there are feedbacks within
the climate system which amplify and modify external forcing
leading to marked climate variations  (Emphasis added).

http://www.mpimet.mp...hara_grl_99.pdf

The change from the mid-Holocene climate to that of today was initiated   by changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of Earth's axis. Some 9,000  years ago, Earth's tilt was 24.14 degrees, as compared with the current  23.45 degrees, and perihelion, the point in the Earth's orbit that is  closest to the  Sun, occurred at the end of July, as compared with early  January now.  At that time, the Northern Hemisphere received more summer  sunlight,  which amplified the African and Indian summer monsoon (Emphasis added).

The changes in Earth's orbit occurred gradually, however, whereas the  evolution of North Africa's climate and vegetation were abrupt (Emphasis added).

http://www.scienceda...90712080500.htm

As has been previously presented, there would not appear to be any  support for a major axial shift during the time period of your  speculation.

Edit: Emphasis.

Edited by Swede, 02 March 2012 - 04:03 PM.

[Abramelin]

Alewyn, you posted this picture:



Even on that picture (pre-2194BC) the Mediterranean would not be near the sunset ("evening") whether during winter or summer.

(btw, these images of yours appear to have a life of their own, lol: small, big, and then small again)

.

Edited by Abramelin, 02 March 2012 - 05:09 PM.

[Abramelin]

Alewyn, on 02 March 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

The Book of Enoch

Chapter 55
(4) And when that agitation took place; the saints out of heaven perceived it; the pillar of the earth shook from its foundation; and the sound was heard from the extremities of the earth unto the extremities of heaven at the same time.

Chapter 64
In those days Noah saw that the earth became inclined, and that destruction approached.(2) Then he lifted up his feet, and went to the ends of the earth, to the dwelling of his great-grandfather Enoch. (3) And Noah cried with a bitter voice, Hear me; hear me; hear me: three times. And he said, Tell me what is transacting upon the earth; for the earth labours, and is violently shaken. Surely I shall perish with it. (4) After this there was a great perturbation on earth, and a voice was heard from heaven. I fell down on my face, when my great-grandfather Enoch came and stood by me.

OK, I never read the Book of Enoch, and just scrolled through an online version:

The book of Enoch, the prophet:
an apocryphal production,
supposed for ages to have been lost;
but
discovered at the close of the last century in
Abyssinia;

Richard Laurence, 1838, 3d edition

http://books.google...._other_versions

I would like to see how other writers translated this sentence:

"In those days Noah saw that the earth became inclined".

Anyway, the book I just scrolled through (see link) was the 3d edition of 1838. It must have created a stirr amongst theologicians. Would you think a man like Halbertsma, who had studied theology and was a minister/preacher, a man who spent an incredible amount of money to buy books about many topics, had owned or at least had read this book?

Just yesterday I posted about the discovery of a 1500 years old book, the Gospel by Barnabas, in another forum here. I can imagine a theologian will love to read that book because it will prove to be nothing less than spectacular. If it's not some falsification, of course.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 02 March 2012 - 04:53 PM.

[Otharus]

"Om de erfenis van Friso ~ 175 jaar Fries Genootschap"
by Goffe Jensma,
published in
"Het Fries Genootschap 1827-2002" (2002).

(translation, for original see attached scan; p.61-62)

The Oera Linda-book, that surfaced in 1867 as one of the many manuscripts that were discussed in the meetings of the Fries Genootschap (Frisian Society), for many years in bursts dominated the discussions within the Frisian Society, as well as outside. The manuscript seemed to agree with all Frisian fantasies and exaggerated them. The Frisians did not descend from Friso, who would have come from India to Friesland, they were much older: Friso was a descendant from a colony of Frisians that had already moved from Friesland to India in the fifteenth century BC, led by the daughter of Great Pier [(c.1480 – 1520 AD)], would you believe. The book did make use of the new methods to approach ancient history; it referred to theories about the qualities of races, as explained by Quatrefages, and it suggested that the history of the European white race equalled that of the Free Frisians.

The reputation of the Frisian Society suffered a lot from this history, not so much because of the book itself, but mostly because a prominent board member of the Society, Jan Gerhardus Ottema believed in it, and published it (independantly from the Society) in 1871.

François Haverschmidt - vicar ànd member of the Society - and his friend Eelco Verwijs - working member of the Society -, who created and brought it into the world respectively, demonstrated in other works by their hands, that they rejected the fantastic historiography. By choosing the form of a mystification, this remained implicit, and the discusion did not come to an end, neither about the OLB, nor about the Frisian myth. It would take another generation before the Society would start discussing the myth not only as a form of literature, but also scientifically.



This was 2 years BEFORE Jensma published his THEORY about Haverschmidt and Verwijs.
To translate GÉRT.PIRE.HIS TOGHATER with the daughter of Great Pier is very daring.
In this forum we concluded that it makes no sense at all.
It is a very liberal interpretation by Jensma, but he does not present it here as such.

When Jensma wrote this, he was 'doctorandus' (master of arts) in history and philosophy.

Even in my first year at university (I am a master of science), I would not have gotten away with presenting my theories as if they are facts.

The board members of the Frisan Society, who were about to celebrate their 175th jubilee must have wanted him (and paid him) to finally silence the OLB debate, to leave no doubt about it being fake and mystery solved.

I have read and heard enough by now to understand that the OLB is the worst pain in their asses. Thinking about the book means having sleepless nights and headaches... or worse.

And I know too well (from personal experiece) that scientists of my generation are paid to 'prove' whatever our patrons want us to 'scientifically' prove.

Science is the new religion, and people like Jensma are its priests.

Edited by Otharus, 02 March 2012 - 06:18 PM.

[Abramelin]

LOL, I like that pic of Jensma on the cover. My first reaction was , "What??!".

Btw, nothing important, but 2 days ago someone (an Anglo-Mexican) posted a musical video on my site... the title of his post was "Ott" !!

And yeah, that translation, "Grutte Pier's daughter". That was plain wrong.

According to OLB lingo that should have been something like "PIRE.TONAMATH GRUT_HIS TOGHATER"

.

Edited by Abramelin, 02 March 2012 - 06:14 PM.

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 02 March 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

LOL, I like that pic of Jensma on the cover. My first reaction was , "What??!".

Btw, nothing important, but 2 days ago someone (an Anglo-Mexican) posted a musical video on my site... the title of his post was "OTT" !!

LOL, as in Over The Top?

Yep, must be about me!

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 02 March 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

LOL, as in Over The Top?

Yep, must be about me!

Heh, well, if you can make music like that... two of the three videos I liked.

(I guess you missed my edit: check the underlined word in my former post.)

And no, I should have writen "Ott" - a name, not an abbreviation -  because that was the title of his post.

I added your 'book cover' in a reply.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 02 March 2012 - 06:25 PM.

[Otharus]

Otharus, on 02 March 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

Jensma: "The reputation of the Frisian Society suffered a lot from this history, not so much because of the book itself, but mostly because a prominent board member of the Society, Jan Gerhardus Ottema believed in it, and published it (independantly from the Society) in 1871."

M'nheer Jensma! M'nheer Jensma! Och, och...

Ottema published the first OLB-transcription & -translation in 1872!

Edited by Otharus, 02 March 2012 - 08:29 PM.

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 02 March 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

And no, I should have writen "Ott" - a name, not an abbreviation -  because that was the title of his post.

That distant cousin seems to have a similar taste as I.

Creative genes, I guess...

I kind of like Jensma's translation of our name: "gelukzaligheid" (bliss).

(Not ALL of his work is worthless!)