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This topic has been archived.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

#7681    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,073 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 18 November 2011 - 03:49 AM

 Abramelin, on 17 November 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:

Pictet, Adolphe "Iren und Arier" Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen 1858.

I could show your more, but some politically correct XXXX accused me of being a neo-Nazi when I posted that other source, a source published decades before the OLB was published. My posts with that source were deleted.

I looked up the first post where you mentioned "We worship the Fravashi of the holy Frya."  It's nothing but the same word, and it has no relationship at all with anything in the OLB.

The Japanese also use the word "so" like the English do. They also say "Hay" almost the same like a Scot would say, "Aye". And it even means the same.




.
I was going to quote from Madison Grant's The Passing of a Great Race....  :unsure:

Edited by The Puzzler, 18 November 2011 - 03:59 AM.

"The agony and the irony, they're killing me"
Flagpole Sitta - Harvey Danger

#7682    Alewyn

Alewyn

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2010

Posted 18 November 2011 - 05:02 AM

 Abramelin, on 17 November 2011 - 08:22 PM, said:

I also told you why: the Troyan war took 10 years (1194-1184 / Eratosthenes); 1189 (and NOT 1188, which is based on the erroneous OLB date of 2193 BC; it should be 2194 BC) was smack in the middle of those 10 years.

I also showed you that some scientists - based on their knowledge of ancient eclipses - come to a date of 1178 BC.
Just to make sure that we do not twist the facts too much:

The date of 1178 BC you throw in, refers to Ulysses' return to his home - 10 YEARS AFTER THE TROJAN WAR.
So, even these scientists, "based on their knowledge of ancient eclipses", confirm the date of 1188 BC as the time of Troy's fall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey

Quote

Doctors Baikouzis and Magnasco state that "[t]he odds that purely fictional references to these phenomena (so hard to satisfy simultaneously) would coincide by accident with the only eclipse of the century are minute." They conclude that these three astronomical references "'cohere,' in the sense that the astronomical phenomena pinpoint the date of 16 April 1178 BC" as the most likely date of Odysseus' return.

This dating places the destruction of Troy, ten years before, to 1188 BC, which is close to the archaeologically dated destruction of Troy VIIa circa 1190 BC.




#7683    Alewyn

Alewyn

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2010

Posted 18 November 2011 - 05:07 AM

 Abramelin, on 17 November 2011 - 10:05 PM, said:

Source?

You DO know that for almost every word I post here, I always post the link where I got it from.

.
I would have thought that you have read and knew Homer's Illiad and Odyssey.

Just Google Odyssey and read it. It is all over the Internet.


#7684    Alewyn

Alewyn

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2010

Posted 18 November 2011 - 05:45 AM

 Abramelin, on 17 November 2011 - 09:01 PM, said:

I just tried to be on the same level with you all.

What you can do, I can do too.

And as you must have read: it's the only available connection between anything 'Walhalla' and Minerva.

Or as some others would put it: just another coincidence.

No Pal, this just shows that you will try anything to show that the OLB is a hoax. Your previous claims that you also wished that the Oera Linda Book was authentic, is simply not true.
This puts paid to any of your false claims of objectivity.

Your and Knuls attempts to now promote Halbertsma as the person who created the so-called Hoax,  prove that even you do not agree with Jensma or anybody else that tried to prove over the last 140 years that the Oera Linda Book is a hoax and, more particularly, as to who created the so-called hoax.

You and all the other Hoax Theorists over the last 140 years tried every name of anybody who was somebody in the Netherlands in the 19th century. Yet, you still do not agree with one another but, each one of you tries to promote your individual theory as gospel.


#7685    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 18 November 2011 - 06:57 AM

Comments on Goffe Jensma's email to Alewyn Raubenheimer, dated 18-8-2010.

 Alewyn, on 16 November 2011 - 01:40 PM, said:

link to original post

"I think your book stands in a long tradition of readers (and writers) who are taking the text of the book literally, or better: which take it for a factual description of some prehistoric reality (Herman Wirth's, Die Ura Linda Chronik  from the 1930s has proven to be influential). In my view it obviously is not. You can set up a whole string of arguments to show that. For instance the letters used in the book are nothing but Roman capitals, the language used is a Frisian form of 19th century Dutch, full of 19th century words and references to nineteenth century persons and events; if you give the text a closer look you will see that the chronology has been inferred in the text at a later stage of the making process, the text originally being a non-historical allegory in which Frya and the Magi were the main characters. And so on, and so on."

So Jensma's main arguments to show that OLB has to be a hoax are:

1. The letters are "nothing but Roman capitals"

Apparently they are different from his expectation. How does this prove that OLB is fake? In fact they're not identical, but similar to Roman capitals, as well as to Greek capitals.

2. The language is "a Frisian form of 19th century Dutch"

Again, because the language is different from the expectation, based on what is known already, does not prove it's fake. As we have seen earlier in this thread there are no hard evidence examples of this. I would rather conclude that modern Dutch in some ways is more similar to Oldfrisian than modern "Frisian" is. The same can be said of modern English, German and the Scandinavian languages. Through the ages, the written languages have adapted more to the spoken language. Besides, parts of OLB are not at all that easy to translate.

3. It uses "19th century words and references to 19th century persons and events"

In this forum we have seen that there are no convincing examples of this. I have not read any in his book either. Someone who wants to prove a conspiracy theory can find clues everywhere to confirm his belief, like 'hidden messages' in the newspaper or on television. Knul does the same; he only sees things that confirm his theory and ignores everything else. If one wants to see references to the French Revolution or any other conflict, they could also be found. The explanation for this is that similar patterns are repeated over and over again in history.

4. "The chronology has been inferred in the text at a later stage of the making process"
5. The text originally was a "non-historical allegory in which Frya and the Magi were the main characters"

Points 4 and 5 are conclusions or suppositions by Jensma himself, that he uses as proof. They can only be true if one first concludes that it is a hoax, but they can not be used to prove that it is a hoax.

Edited by Otharus, 18 November 2011 - 07:06 AM.


#7686    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,073 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:06 AM

 Alewyn, on 17 November 2011 - 10:01 AM, said:

No Puzzler, I have not taken liberty with the date. It is the date that the OLB gives as the start of its calendar.

I have verified it, inter alia, through the campaigns of Alexander, the sacking of Troy, Biblical chronology, the Manhattan Tsunami, the Battle of Salamis and a host of other historical facts. You have my book - check it out.

I think it's a date given by 'Christian Reckoning', not necessarily the OLB but no matter.
Maybe it's even 2194BC.

Here's a precise mention of that date. During Yu's reign a Great Flood inundated China.
Yu the Great came to power in 2194 B.C. and was succeeded by his son, Qi of Xia, in 2146 B.C.
http://www.buzzle.co...y-of-china.html

The alleged nature of the flood is shown in the following quote:

Like endless boiling water, the flood is pouring forth destruction. Boundless and overwhelming, it overtops hills and mountains. Rising and ever rising, it threatens the very heavens. How the people must be groaning and suffering!


-- Emperor Yao, as quoted in the Book of History, describing the flood


In the Sami it shows they have an East Asian influence, the particular chart shown first on this website shows the yellow colour of the Han Chinese area in the Sami dna.
http://blogs.discove...north-the-sami/

Some Sami look very Asian. I think it's not so crazy to think the Magyar came from the realm of the Great Flood of Yu at precisely the time frame the OLB gives us.
Secondly, what's the odds of a Great Flood described in that way being a different one as basis for a Great Flood story.

100 years had passed since the sinking of Atland when the Magyar arrived, plenty of time to have left and settled in the Urals for a few generations beforehand as well. These Chinese are very underestimated imo. They were recording all these early comets and astronomical knowledge. They appear to have come from an area in
the Chalcolithic age, with copper and stone weapons. Otzi the Iceman has a copper axe.

A great monsoon season in China would have also resulted in very limited rainfall elsewhere that season, possibly the reason for the famine and parchment in many other places. Yu and a version of Ngushur, the first King after the Flood in Sumer actually ring a same sound of Yu/Ngu or English Ju. Oddly enough in Vietnamese Yu means stupid or idiot, which is exactly what everyone else thought Noah was... :w00t:

"The agony and the irony, they're killing me"
Flagpole Sitta - Harvey Danger

#7687    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 18 November 2011 - 08:47 AM

Thanks for reminding me of this, Abe.

It disproved Halbertsma as a possible suspect.

Knul, what is your answer to this?

 Otharus, on 28 February 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

The following is copied from his publication "LETTERKUNDIGE NAOOGST" (1840), a study of Frisian poetry and literature and the meaning of words (page 138).

Improvised translation
"Tzjerl. The Latin gerulus, a carrier, is like the Germanic carle, Anglosaxon corle, English churl [tshurl] and this Tjzerl or tzjirl; meaning a man, that by his birth is doomed to carry and tote, or to general land-labour. We already saw that the word with the Anglosaxons and the Frisians had the meaning of a service-man, with or without the prefix hs. But these huis-kerels, that is, house-servants, became besides fieldworkers, also servants around the house for the landlords and later also for helpers in battle. King Aelfric therefore used the term cer-corl, akkerkerel or farmer, as opposed to hs-corl. That's why in medieval Latin hus-carla not only means the man, who is part of the court of a prince or lord, but also the warrior from the court, or one of the bodyguards. Du Cange gave an example where the king gave certain orders to all soldiers of his court, that in Danish are called hs-carlen. Gabbema (...) shows the tzirlen as meaning fight-mates, and Gysbert uses it in a similar sense like comrade, fellow, loyal mate. The Hollanders say in that same sense "kereltje" to the children, and the Friezen Tzirl to a grown up man. Tzirl is more proud and more masculine than Kereltje. Friesland was the most aristocratic nation of the world, yet so much tempered by democracy, that the farmer calls his landlord Tzerl with the deepest respect. This cultural spirit, still owned by the English, was the result of these peoples being ruled by the ancient duces, mentioned by Tacitus."

Some conclusions

1)
Halbertsma starts with comparing this Frisian word "Tzjerl" with its counterparts in Latin, Germanic, Anglosaxon and English. He emphatically leaves out the Dutch "Kerel". Later he mentions that the Hollanders call their children "kereltje", but he immediately adds that the Frisian word is so much more masculine and proud.
In the OLB, the version of this word is KERDEL and it is used only twice:

(Fryan) KERDEL = (Dutch) kerel  = (German) Kerl = (Swedish) kille = (Frisian) = tzjerl
(the modern English churl has a negative meaning, but apparently in the 19th century it was still a positive term)

Related names: Karel, Karl, Carl, Charles, Carolus, Carlos

transliteration Ottema, 1876:
[p.041] Jahwder jong kerdel ch en brud to ska nd is er fif nd twintich sa cht-er en wif to hva.
[p.119] Th hja landa hipte-n jong kerdel wal vp. In sina handa hdi-n skild, thrvp was brd end salt lid.

Now imagine this Halbertsma, being a proud nationalsist Frisian, who liked to believe that his Frisian language was older than the language of the Hollanders that he must have hated or at least despised so much. And he has a little obsession with this word tzjerl (in his beloved English: churl).
Why would he, writing his political and/or cultural-historical masterpiece use a version of this word that is much closer to the Hollandic KEREL that to his Frisian TZJERL? And he could easily have used this word many times, preferrably in combination with "HS-", but no, it's only used twice and only in the context of a young man, and hardly as the hard working or brave, proud loyal warrior that he described in his 1840 essay.

2)
He proudly calls Friesland the most aristocratic nation of the world and he does not seem very pleased with the democratic principle. The OLB does not reflect these sentiments at all.

3)
He suggests that the respect that the Frisians and English still have for their landlords stems from the time of the DUCES from the Roman times (reminds me of Mussolini LOL). How do you think the Folkmothers and the free fryans from the OLB would have felt about those 'duces'? That was a rhetorical question indeed.

So, in this short sample, there's already three reasons to dismiss the theory that Halbertsma would have been involved in the creation of the OLB.

Even ber-hoaxtheorist Jensma did not consider Halbertsma a serious candidate for the job.



#7688    Knul

Knul

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 18 November 2011 - 09:32 AM

 Otharus, on 18 November 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:

Thanks for reminding me of this, Abe.

It disproved Halbertsma as a possible suspect.

Knul, what is your answer to this?

Its about the etymology of huskerl, which was a special function in Danmark. King Gottrik of Haithabu was killed by one of his huskerls (probably his son). Maybe the inland counterpart of jarl (se-kening). The combination of hus + kerl gives an other meaning to the word kerl. It does not proof anything about the authorship of Halbertsma. Your remarks 2 and 3 are suggestive and not based on facts.  


s.http://books.google.nl/books/download/Friesische_rechtsquellen.pdf?id=nw0GAAAAQAAJ&hl=nl&capid=AFLRE71bcYeOi9RXQ8Hf7MpD-G08EsIXEeNb-5MTkk56Dr2T-HuXSDafMoBEkDPYvkvr-kxol3fUBIHW3W2tjE0cNy66gWt0kg&continue=http://books.google.nl/books/download/Friesische_rechtsquellen.pdf%3Fid%3Dnw0GAAAAQAAJ%26hl%3Dnl%26output%3Dpdf


#7689    Knul

Knul

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 18 November 2011 - 09:38 AM

 Otharus, on 18 November 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:

Thanks for reminding me of this, Abe.

It disproved Halbertsma as a possible suspect.

Knul, what is your answer to this?

Jensma considered Haverschmidt, who denied this role in a letter to L.F. over de Linden. You can read this letter here:  http://www.rodinbook.nl/.


#7690    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 18 November 2011 - 09:47 AM

 Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

Jensma considered Haverschmidt, who denied this role in a letter to L.F. over de Linden.
Cornelis Over de Linden also denied having been involved in fabricating the manuscript.

According to your theory, he was anyway.


#7691    Knul

Knul

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 18 November 2011 - 09:59 AM

 Otharus, on 18 November 2011 - 06:57 AM, said:

Comments on Goffe Jensma's email to Alewyn Raubenheimer, dated 18-8-2010.



"I think your book stands in a long tradition of readers (and writers) who are taking the text of the book literally, or better: which take it for a factual description of some prehistoric reality (Herman Wirth's, Die Ura Linda Chronik  from the 1930s has proven to be influential). In my view it obviously is not. You can set up a whole string of arguments to show that. For instance the letters used in the book are nothing but Roman capitals, the language used is a Frisian form of 19th century Dutch, full of 19th century words and references to nineteenth century persons and events; if you give the text a closer look you will see that the chronology has been inferred in the text at a later stage of the making process, the text originally being a non-historical allegory in which Frya and the Magi were the main characters. And so on, and so on."

So Jensma's main arguments to show that OLB has to be a hoax are:

1. The letters are "nothing but Roman capitals"

Apparently they are different from his expectation. How does this prove that OLB is fake? In fact they're not identical, but similar to Roman capitals, as well as to Greek capitals.

2. The language is "a Frisian form of 19th century Dutch"

Again, because the language is different from the expectation, based on what is known already, does not prove it's fake. As we have seen earlier in this thread there are no hard evidence examples of this. I would rather conclude that modern Dutch in some ways is more similar to Oldfrisian than modern "Frisian" is. The same can be said of modern English, German and the Scandinavian languages. Through the ages, the written languages have adapted more to the spoken language. Besides, parts of OLB are not at all that easy to translate.

3. It uses "19th century words and references to 19th century persons and events"

In this forum we have seen that there are no convincing examples of this. I have not read any in his book either. Someone who wants to prove a conspiracy theory can find clues everywhere to confirm his belief, like 'hidden messages' in the newspaper or on television. Knul does the same; he only sees things that confirm his theory and ignores everything else. If one wants to see references to the French Revolution or any other conflict, they could also be found. The explanation for this is that similar patterns are repeated over and over again in history.

4. "The chronology has been inferred in the text at a later stage of the making process"
5. The text originally was a "non-historical allegory in which Frya and the Magi were the main characters"

Points 4 and 5 are conclusions or suppositions by Jensma himself, that he uses as proof. They can only be true if one first concludes that it is a hoax, but they can not be used to prove that it is a hoax.

So far, not Jensma or me are the ones, who refuse to accept evidence, but you are. I can largely agree with Jensma's e-mail to Alewyn.


#7692    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:05 AM

 Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 09:32 AM, said:

Its about the etymology of huskerl, which was a special function in Danmark. King Gottrik of Haithabu was killed by one of his huskerls (probably his son). Maybe the inland counterpart of jarl (se-kening). The combination of hus + kerl gives an other meaning to the word kerl. It does not proof anything about the authorship of Halbertsma. Your remarks 2 and 3 are suggestive and not based on facts.
The problem with psychological arguments, is that they are never hard facts.

In Halbertsma's work elements can be found that are in agreement with the 'psychology' (or 'spirit') of the OLB, but other elements are in strong conflict with it.

You focus on the overlapping elements, but ignore the conflicting ones. That is because you want to believe that you are a 100% right, rather than consider a sliding scale of probablity that you are.

Halbertsma had a few favorite topics, or even obsessions (example: Hindelopen), of which we find no trace in the OLB.


#7693    Knul

Knul

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:09 AM

 Otharus, on 18 November 2011 - 09:47 AM, said:

Cornelis Over de Linden also denied having been involved in fabricating the manuscript.

According to your theory, he was anyway.

As far as I know Cornelis over the Linden never denied that he was involved in fabricating the manuscript, but told that he received it from his aunt Aafje and that he could not read and understand it himself. He told that story after 19 years of silence, when his main witness Stadermann had died.


#7694    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:12 AM

 Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 09:59 AM, said:

So far, not Jensma or me are the ones, who refuse to accept evidence, but you are.
I asked you many times: WHAT EVIDENCE?!

The only thing you came up with was that words like BOI, MERY, JES and LOK would be too modern.

This evidence is too weak. We don't know how old these words are.

= = =

Which parts of Jensma's mail do you disagree with?

Edited by Otharus, 18 November 2011 - 10:17 AM.


#7695    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:16 AM

 Knul, on 18 November 2011 - 10:09 AM, said:

As far as I know Cornelis over the Linden never denied that he was involved in fabricating the manuscript...
What???!!!  :wacko:

This post is of the same level of intelligence as when you wrote that the OLB must have been written after 1935.