11638 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

Alewyn, on 08 April 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

Puzzler, It is not correct that I "wholeheartedly believe" in the OLB. I do believe that most of the historical facts, as far as I could verify it, are correct.

I accept that the OLB's "Jessos of Kashmir" is supposed to be "Jesus of Nasareth". You will notice in my book, however, that I suspect this is the one part of the OLB that is not true and as I stated, I am of the opinion that this is some "disinformation" that was slipped in centuries later and written as though this "Jessos of Kashmir" lived ca. 593 BC and that he was also known as Buddah and Krishna.

You must remember that there was a lot of animosity between the (Catholic) church and non-Christians during the first millenium AD. I suspect that the person who fabricated this bit in the OLB could not distance him/herself from the message of Jesus Christ but, nevertheless, wanted to discredit the "Christian" church of the time.  

As I stated in my book, the fact that "Jesus of Nasareth" lived at the start of the first century AD has been proven beyond any doubt from both Biblical and non-Biblical sources. One can argue whether he was born in 6 BC or a few years later, or whether Christmas should be 25 December or 20 March or whatever specific date. The date of his birth, however, is not out by almost 600 years as the OLB states. In addition, Jesus of Nasareth was not a contemporary of Buddah and Krishna.

I did not write too much in my book about this because I simply do not know and did not want to get embroiled in unfounded speculation.

I have read widely on the history of the church and I can assure you the Popes and Church in the Middle ages were, i.m.o., evil personified. Fortunately Christianity has come a long way since then.

I do not subscribe to the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church but there is one book I can recommend that was written by a Catholic. It is called "The History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson. I do not think it is in print anymore but if you can find it, it is an excellent read (with all the blood and guts that goes with it)

Alewyn, I know about your sensitivity concerning this, but could you please stop about it??

This will go nowhere at all, it will only derail this thread.

This thread is about an ancient manuscript. Period.

I really LOVE this thread, but I don't want it to become a thing about who knows more about Jesus/Christianity and similar things.

I am not an admin, but I am quite sure that if the two of you keep bickering about this OFF-TOPIC thing that no one interested in the OLB is interested in, the admins will CLOSE this thread at some point.

I don't want that to happen, and no one else interested in the OLB wants that to happen.

Send eachother pm's about your religious dispute, but leave this thread clean of that.

OK?

Now I quote what you told Flash:

"Flash, It is not that I want to avoid the topic. In fact, I would love to get into a debate about it with Puzzler or anyone else. The problem is that it will totally detract from, and derail this discussion as Abe rightfully said."

Now take your own advice at heart.
.

Edited by Abramelin, 08 April 2011 - 06:53 PM.

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 08 April 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

Alewyn already said something about the "boere" in Southern Africa.

Well, the Frisians always felt discriminated against by the Hollanders, because the Hollanders considered them to be nothing but "stomme boeren" (literally, stupid farmers). Nowadays calling someone a "boer" or "stomme boer" is still very insulting, and it means nothing but knucklebrain or moron.

In the war, those "boeren" were suddenly very popular, specially in the notorious "hongerwinter" of 1944...

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 09 April 2011 - 01:28 AM, said:

In the war, those "boeren" were suddenly very popular, specially in the notorious "hongerwinter" of 1944...

Yeah, I know, and how much my mother hated them for the money they asked for their potatoes...

Heh, well, they got 'payed' after the war ended, lol.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 09 April 2011 - 01:34 AM.

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 08 April 2011 - 05:34 PM, said:

Well, something did happen around 2200 BC, and that is a change in weather patterns all over the world. But we also had a Little Ice Age during and after the late Middle Ages, but nothing points to some major catastrophic and world-wide disaster like a comet impact or something. It could have been caused by Icelandic volcanoes erupting and/or a change in sea currents.

We should be aware that when the text about the big flood (that could be read on the walls of all the burgs) was copied in the 6th century BC, the story was already some 16 centuries old. That means that, although without doubt it had been a big disaster for the Fryans, part of it may have been dramatic exaggeration.

[Otharus]

Alewyn, on 08 April 2011 - 05:09 PM, said:

Secondly, the list seems to talk about people that lived East and North-East from Frisia. One would therefore not expect to see OLB names amongst them. In fact, I would suggest that had the names been similar, it would have proven that the OLB was copied from these "older" writings. As it stands, it would seem that the OLB was written quite independetly from these old "Germanic" writings, even though the time frame may be the same.

I would have to study those German texts to have a solid opinion about it, but it seems to me that they are similar to the Frisian historiography of the same period; partly based on older sources and/or oral tradition and partly based on fantasy (similar to our gossip magazines LOL).

If there are similarities between the 16th century sources and the OLB, it can either mean that one has inspired the other, or that they are both based on an older (possibly <partly> true) source.

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 09 April 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:

Yeah, I know, and how much my mother hated them for the money they asked for their potatoes...

Well, she could have eaten her money...

Were did it come from anyway?
From giving away things for free to strangers?

Edited by Otharus, 09 April 2011 - 05:31 AM.

[Otharus]

Abramelin, on 09 April 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:

Heh, well, they got 'payed' after the war ended, lol.

Yes and anyone who had not collaborated with the Germans or had not made any money during the war was suddenly a war-hero.

We're getting slightly off-topic here, but I think it's worth it.

Arrogant Hollanders indeed.  

Typical, this black-and-white thinking.
Sure, there have been farmers who took advantage of the situation and asked ridiculous prices. There were also farmers who gave food away for free. And many of them in between.
Same with the ones that offered hiding places. Some asked a lot in return, not all, but they all risked their lives.

It's time for a new, proper crisis, cityboy.  

(this time *I* take the freedom to express some frustration)

Edited by Otharus, 09 April 2011 - 06:06 AM.

[The Puzzler]

It's weird, because I was always told in threads here how astrology was hogwash but here we are, our whole Western Society based on a star seen by some sorcerors, 'heretics' at that.

The New Revised Standard Version of Matthew 2:1–12 describes the visit of the Magi:

In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, "Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage." When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet: 'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.'" Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage." When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they left for their own country by another path.

They are mentioned twice shortly thereafter, in reference to their avoidance of Herod after seeing Jesus, and what Herod had learned from their earlier meeting.

The Magi are popularly referred to as wise men and kings. The word magi is the plural of Latin magus, borrowed from Greek μάγος magos,[5], as used in the original Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew. Greek magos itself is derived from Old Persian maguŝ from the Avestan magâunô, i.e. the religious caste into which Zoroaster was born, (see Yasna 33.7:' ýâ sruyę parę magâunô ' = ' so I can be heard beyond Magi '). The term refers to the priestly caste of Zoroastrianism.[6] As part of their religion, these priests paid particular attention to the stars, and gained an international reputation for astrology, which was at that time highly regarded as a science. Their religious practices and use of astrology caused derivatives of the term Magi to be applied to the occult in general and led to the English term magic. Translated in the King James Version as wise men, the same translation is applied to the wise men led by Daniel of earlier Hebrew Scriptures (Daniel 2:48). The same word is given as sorcerer and sorcery when describing "Elymas the sorcerer" in Acts 13:6–11, and Simon Magus, considered a heretic by the early Church, in Acts 8:9–13
http://en.wikipedia....i/Biblical_Magi

Anyway, I'm not baiting anyone or trying to derail the thread, it's my last say on it, just making a point how ridiculously ironic I think that is, in case anyone wants to ponder it some more, while I go read my horoscope.  

[Alewyn]

The Puzzler, on 09 April 2011 - 06:18 AM, said:

It's weird, because I was always told in threads here how astrology was hogwash but here we are, our whole Western Society based on a star seen by some sorcerors, 'heretics' at that.

The New Revised Standard Version of Matthew 2:1–12 describes the visit of the Magi:

In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, "Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage." When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet: 'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.'" Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage." When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they left for their own country by another path.

They are mentioned twice shortly thereafter, in reference to their avoidance of Herod after seeing Jesus, and what Herod had learned from their earlier meeting.

The Magi are popularly referred to as wise men and kings. The word magi is the plural of Latin magus, borrowed from Greek μάγος magos,[5], as used in the original Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew. Greek magos itself is derived from Old Persian maguŝ from the Avestan magâunô, i.e. the religious caste into which Zoroaster was born, (see Yasna 33.7:' ýâ sruyę parę magâunô ' = ' so I can be heard beyond Magi '). The term refers to the priestly caste of Zoroastrianism.[6] As part of their religion, these priests paid particular attention to the stars, and gained an international reputation for astrology, which was at that time highly regarded as a science. Their religious practices and use of astrology caused derivatives of the term Magi to be applied to the occult in general and led to the English term magic. Translated in the King James Version as wise men, the same translation is applied to the wise men led by Daniel of earlier Hebrew Scriptures (Daniel 2:48). The same word is given as sorcerer and sorcery when describing "Elymas the sorcerer" in Acts 13:6–11, and Simon Magus, considered a heretic by the early Church, in Acts 8:9–13
http://en.wikipedia....i/Biblical_Magi

Anyway, I'm not baiting anyone or trying to derail the thread, it's my last say on it, just making a point how ridiculously ironic I think that is, in case anyone wants to ponder it some more, while I go read my horoscope.  

Abe! A-a-b-b-e-e! She's at it again!

[Otharus]

One of the most important reasons why OLB is rejected by most Dutch scholars seems to be that the language is relatively easy to understand.

Since the oldest known texts in Dutch, Frisian, Saxon etc. are more difficult to understand, people assume, that anything older should be even more difficult than, or more different from our 'modern' language.

What they don't realize is that while the written history (written language) had been thoroughly destroyed in a few hunderd years of cultural genocide, the spoken language may have stayed almost the same for people who did not migrate and mix too much.

In the late Middle Ages, the only people who could read and write, had learnt this in Latin (not counting the few exceptions like Liko and Hidde, who risked their lives writing in the old language).

At some point they tried to write down the commonly spoken language (that was much older than Latin), but they had no more examples, they had to construct or actually reconstruct the spelling.

So instead of the evolution of language being linear or exponential (from very primitive to very advanced), it was actually more cyclic; at some point very advanced, and then as a result of wars, migrations and mixing of cultures, it became confused and partly forgotten, while later, in times of relative peace, it was reconstructed again.

Because of the similarities in the North-European languages, we can conclude that they must have had the same (or at least a shared) origin, much older than any known written source.

Nowhere ever have I seen one convincing example of "modern Dutch" in OLB that would prove that it cannot be as old as it says it is.

Edited by Otharus, 09 April 2011 - 07:48 AM.

[Alewyn]

Otharus, on 09 April 2011 - 05:44 AM, said:

Yes and anyone who had not collaborated with the Germans or had not made any money during the war was suddenly a war-hero.

We're getting slightly off-topic here, but I think it's worth it.

Arrogant Hollanders indeed.  

Typical, this black-and-white thinking.
Sure, there have been farmers who took advantage of the situation and asked ridiculous prices. There were also farmers who gave food away for free. And many of them in between.
Same with the ones that offered hiding places. Some asked a lot in return, not all, but they all risked their lives.

It's time for a new, proper crisis, cityboy.  

(this time *I* take the freedom to express some frustration)

Lo and Behold! The love between neighbours. 'Tis a thing of beauty, indeed!

Vat hom, Fluffy!

(That is Afrikaans for "Take him, Fluffy!" i.e. when sicing a dog on someone.)

Edited by Alewyn, 09 April 2011 - 08:20 AM.

[The Puzzler]

Otharus, on 09 April 2011 - 07:37 AM, said:

One of the most important reasons why OLB is rejected by most Dutch scholars seems to be that the language is relatively easy to understand.

Since the oldest known texts in Dutch, Frisian, Saxon etc. are more difficult to understand, people assume, that anything older should be even more difficult than, or more different from our 'modern' language.

What they don't realize is that while the written history (written language) had been thoroughly destroyed in a few hunderd years of cultural genocide, the spoken language may have stayed almost the same for people who did not migrate and mix too much.

In the late Middle Ages, the only people who could read and write, had learnt this in Latin (not counting the few exceptions like Liko and Hidde, who risked their lives writing in the old language).

At some point they tried to write down the commonly spoken language (that was much older than Latin), but they had no more examples, they had to construct or actually reconstruct the spelling.

So instead of the evolution of language being linear or exponential (from very primitive to very advanced), it was actually more cyclic; at some point very advanced, and then as a result of wars, migrations and mixing of cultures, it became confused and partly forgotten, while later, in times of relative peace, it was reconstructed again.

Because of the similarities in the North-European languages, we can conclude that they must have had the same (or at least a shared) origin, much older than any known written source.

Nowhere ever have I seen one convincing example of "modern Dutch" in OLB that would prove that it cannot be as old as it says it is.

Sounds alot like the Greek Dark Ages too.

[Otharus]

Alewyn, on 08 April 2011 - 11:27 AM, said:

In my geology studies many years ago, we were taught the “Principle of Uniformity” which holds that “the present is the key to the past.” That is to say that the processes that are in motion today were also in motion in the distant past.

This is similar to the “Theory of Uniformitarianism” that we find in the Philosophy of Naturalism. This theory assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.

My contention is that this theory does not only apply to the natural sciences, but also to human behaviour.

Having studied the Oera Linda Book in some detail over the last few years, there are many events in the book that the author(s) describe that tells me they could only describe these if they actually lived through them. The thing is that these were not major historical events or facts, but rather the seemingly casual remarks made in passing. Unless you have experienced this yourself, you would not even notice it.

The OLB describes a few occasions where the Fryan Folk encountered less developed people, settled, tried to educate (and rule them) and then they were kicked out.
Now, when I read this, I cannot help but seeing the similarities with South African history (my “Principle of ‘Human’ Uniformity”).

Please understand that I am not trying to defend or attack anything in S.A. history – I am merely trying to show how human nature has not changed at all over the last few thousand years. From this distance in time, we can now clearly see the picture as it unfolded, but this would not have been possible during the 19th century in the Netherlands.
Let me give a few examples:

In 1652 AD, the Dutch started a halfway station at the Cape of Good Hope (Present day Cape Town) on the Southern tip of Africa, on their long sea voyages between Europe and India. At the time, they had no intention to colonize Africa. Through time, however, the colonists migrated north until they eventually formed the Union of South Africa (under British rule) in1910 and eventually the fully autonomous Republic of South Africa outside the British Commonwealth in 1961. In 1994, the country for the first time became fully democratic by extending the franchise to the majority of the black peoples in the country.
Now let us consider the Oera Linda Book:

1. When Minerva arrived in Attica and started building Athenia, the locals became upset because the “Frisians” did not have slaves. Now why did they react that way? Surely one would have thought that they would have been happy that the Frisians were not about to make slaves of them.
The reason is that the Frisians did not present job opportunities to them. This is something I have encountered countless times in S.A. history and throughout my life. When you start any business in S.A., the locals will only support you, understandably, if you give them employment. If you do not, you will have a fight on your hands.

2. When the Gertmanne were kicked out of Athens, the locals introduced many changes. The most pronounced were the changes in the judicial system. Previously all litigation was done in the “Frisian” language only, then in both Fries and Doric (?) and eventually in the local language only.
Before 1994 in S.A., most state departments, the police, the army, etc, were predominantly Afrikaans. Today the numbers of Afrikaners in these departments are almost non-existent and you will, for most of the time, not be served if you address them in Afrikaans.

3. The OLB describes how the priests and rulers in Athens corrupted the laws after the Gertmanne had left. The same happened in Zimbabwe and all over Africa, and is now happening in South Africa.

4. The Gertmanne in the OLB did not want to live under a foreign government and they chose their own leaders before they were kicked out of Athens.
In S.A. we had the same thing when many people emigrated to Australia, New Zeeland, Canada, etc. The right-wingers in S.A. who could not emigrate, tried to form their own homeland, etc.

In South Africa, Afrikaners are being ridiculed as “Boere” (Farmers) whereas the Frisians that remained in Athens were called “Sea Monsters” (From “Sea Peoples”)

5. When Minnos settled on Crete, the locals wanted democracy. They got it but the rulers soon changed it to suit themselves.
Now think of post-colonial Africa. They all wanted democracy but the tyrants and dictators still rule despite the guise of democracy.
(I am following the events in the Middle East with keen interest)

6. In South Africa, the Afrikaners brought in Apartheid (Separateness) to protect themselves (and their privileged position). I would suggest the same happened in Athens, Crete, India and with the Hyksos in Egypt. That is why they were so resented by the locals. My evidence shows that the descendants of the Gertmanne introduced the Caste system in India. (a different form of Apartheid).

Consider also the privileged positions of the Dutch, British, French, Spanish, Portuguese and German Colonists all over the world until the advent of “Uhuru” in the 1950’s / 1960’s. Even the Australians exploited their indigenous peoples.

I could go on but you will understand what I am trying to say. These subtle and perhaps naďve descriptions is unlikely to have been dreamt up by some hoaxer in the 19th century.

I know it is difficult to visualize or describe the backgrounds in the OLB, but it is these things that convinced me that the OLB is true. With our debate here on UM and my own further investigations, I am even more convinced.

This is one of the most intelligent posts we had in a long time.

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 09 April 2011 - 05:13 AM, said:

Well, she could have eaten her money...

Were did it come from anyway?
From giving away things for free to strangers?

They didn't have to give the food away for free, they should just have asked the normal prices. But they asked 10 times the normal price.

And payment was with food coupons, jewels (if people had them), and so on. And you will know they were 'other forms' of paymment too...

I should also add that my grandfather father's side was a farmer, lol.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 09 April 2011 - 01:22 PM.

[Abramelin]

Otharus, on 09 April 2011 - 05:44 AM, said:

Yes and anyone who had not collaborated with the Germans or had not made any money during the war was suddenly a war-hero.

We're getting slightly off-topic here, but I think it's worth it.

Arrogant Hollanders indeed.  

Typical, this black-and-white thinking.
Sure, there have been farmers who took advantage of the situation and asked ridiculous prices. There were also farmers who gave food away for free. And many of them in between.
Same with the ones that offered hiding places. Some asked a lot in return, not all, but they all risked their lives.

It's time for a new, proper crisis, cityboy.  

(this time *I* take the freedom to express some frustration)

Cityboy.. heh. Well, maybe I am, but I survived in the Amazon jungle quite well.