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This topic has been archived.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

#7861    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,085 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 21 November 2011 - 08:54 PM

View PostAlewyn, on 21 November 2011 - 08:25 PM, said:

So you are saying it is lies, lies, all lies; the Oera Linda Book, the letters, the sworn statements, the essays, the investigations (like E. Molenaar's) etc., etc.
Many of these people were not even Over de Lindes, yet they actively supported the hoax to create this glorious past for the Oera Lindas, or for Friesland, or whatever and, they had no profit motive.

Oh, and before I forget, they were all, what we would call today, working class or blue collared workers and yet, they worked hand in glove with brilliant guys like Dr. Halbertsma. What makes their feat even more remarkable is that nobody could ever crack this extended band of cheats or, shall we say, this brotherhood. Not a single one ever leaked a word of this conspiracy. They even fooled the best linguist in the Netherlands of the time - Dr. Ottema. Truly remarkable!

Of course, we do not have any evidence of this but, who cares? It makes perfect sense.

You are talking about members of the family, and about their enemies who heard them boast about their past.

This is not about a 'brotherhood', this is about nothing but a big fat family-lie.

I am not too ashamed to tell you I have experienced something similar with my own familiy.



.

Edited by Abramelin, 21 November 2011 - 09:02 PM.


#7862    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 21 November 2011 - 09:13 PM

I think the following is particularly relevant again in our times:

Common Laws (MÉNA ÉWA), rule #11

[020/33]
THÉRA THAM TO MŔRKA KVME NE MÜGON NAVT NI WOKERJA.
KVMATH THÉR SVM. SA IS.T THÉRA FAMNA PLICHT
HJAM KŔNBÉR TO MAKJANA INVR THŔT ÉLLE LÁND.
TILTHJU HJA NIMMERTHE KÉREN NAVT WRDE TO ENG AMPT
HWAND SOKA HŔVATH EN GÍRA.LIK.HIRTE.
VMBE SKŔT TO GARJA SKOLDE HJA ELLA VRRÉDA
THŔT FOLK. THJU MODER. HJARA SIBBEN
ŔND THO THA LESTA HJARA SELVA.


[Ottema p.33]
Degene die te markt komen mogen niet woekeren.
Komen er sommige, dan is het de plicht der maagden,
hen kenbaar te maken over het geheele land,
opdat zij nimmer gekozen worden tot eenig ambt,
want zulke hebben een gierig hart.
Om rijkdom te vergaderen zouden zij alles verraden,
het volk, de Moeder, hunne nabestaanden
en ten laatsten zich zelven.

[Sandbach p.33]
There shall be no usurers in the market.
If any should come, it will be the duty of the maidens
to make it known through the whole land,
in order that such people may not be chosen for any office,
because they are hard-hearted.
For the sake of money they would betray everybody —
the people, the mother, their nearest relations,
and even their own selves.


[New improvised translation]
Those who come to market shall not practice usury.
If some come, it's the duty of the Famna
to make them known in the whole land,
so they'll never be chosen for any office,
because such have a vulture-like heart.
To accumulate treasure they would betray all;
the people, the Mother, their relatives,
and at last themselves.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Yes Abe, I might have some 'agenda' after all.


#7863    Knul

Knul

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 21 November 2011 - 10:36 PM

View PostAlewyn, on 21 November 2011 - 07:32 PM, said:

A question to Abramelin and /or Knul:

Do you agree that Cornelis over de Linden (Cornelis I) received the Oera Linda Manuscript from his aunt Aafje Meijlhof in Enkhuizen in 1848?

No, that story has been fancied by Cornelis over de Linden October 1867 in his first letter to Eelco Verwijs. Aunt Aafje died 1849, several years before the discovery of the pile dwellers in Switzerland was breaking news (1854) and before the cattle disease reached Frisia (1853). I have added the argument of a goldrush ca. 1855 in the Upper-Rhine area, when several gold factories moved to the new find place. The goldrush is described in the OLB. Question, how could the illiterate aunt Aafje be in the possession of the (real) manuscript of Worp of Thabor, which was not Frisian (partly Latin, partly Dutch) and had nothing to do with the family over de Linden. I think, that Ernest Stadermamn bought both manuscripts on an auction of Bom in Amsterdam. The only person, who claims to have seen it (headmaster Sipkens) says that he has seen it in 1860.  s. http://www.rodinbook...chiedenis.html. If this is true the forgery happened between 1854-1860, at least partly, because we do not know, if he had seen the complete manuscript.

Edited by Knul, 21 November 2011 - 10:52 PM.


#7864    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,392 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 21 November 2011 - 10:42 PM

I know we covered Twiskland, it was more I was on the level that some of the places might not be what they seem, which is why we can't find any volcanoes erupting there....

Anyway.

Otharus, I think the whole OLB is relevant in our times and the message is what is most important about it.

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#7865    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,085 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 21 November 2011 - 11:25 PM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 21 November 2011 - 10:42 PM, said:

I know we covered Twiskland, it was more I was on the level that some of the places might not be what they seem, which is why we can't find any volcanoes erupting there....

Anyway.

Otharus, I think the whole OLB is relevant in our times and the message is what is most important about it.

Look, or listen: the message the OLB is trying to convey to us is ok to me.

No problems with that at all.

It's just that I have some problems with the history it is supposed to cover.

If I sound 'cryptic' again, then know that I am 'somewhat' ... eh... drunk.

But I know you often post when you had a sip too much.

And I like that, really. I respect honest people above any politician.

Again: the politically correct messsage we all should get from the OLB is nothing short of what we should get from reading the New Testament.

If we all would be willing to live according to the 'tex' of the OLB, this world would be a better place.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 21 November 2011 - 11:43 PM.


#7866    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,085 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 21 November 2011 - 11:49 PM

View PostOtharus, on 21 November 2011 - 09:13 PM, said:

I think the following is particularly relevant again in our times:

Common Laws (MÉNA ÉWA), rule #11

[020/33]
THÉRA THAM TO MŔRKA KVME NE MÜGON NAVT NI WOKERJA.
KVMATH THÉR SVM. SA IS.T THÉRA FAMNA PLICHT
HJAM KŔNBÉR TO MAKJANA INVR THŔT ÉLLE LÁND.
TILTHJU HJA NIMMERTHE KÉREN NAVT WRDE TO ENG AMPT
HWAND SOKA HŔVATH EN GÍRA.LIK.HIRTE.
VMBE SKŔT TO GARJA SKOLDE HJA ELLA VRRÉDA
THŔT FOLK. THJU MODER. HJARA SIBBEN
ŔND THO THA LESTA HJARA SELVA.


[Ottema p.33]
Degene die te markt komen mogen niet woekeren.
Komen er sommige, dan is het de plicht der maagden,
hen kenbaar te maken over het geheele land,
opdat zij nimmer gekozen worden tot eenig ambt,
want zulke hebben een gierig hart.
Om rijkdom te vergaderen zouden zij alles verraden,
het volk, de Moeder, hunne nabestaanden
en ten laatsten zich zelven.

[Sandbach p.33]
There shall be no usurers in the market.
If any should come, it will be the duty of the maidens
to make it known through the whole land,
in order that such people may not be chosen for any office,
because they are hard-hearted.
For the sake of money they would betray everybody —
the people, the mother, their nearest relations,
and even their own selves.


[New improvised translation]
Those who come to market shall not practice usury.
If some come, it's the duty of the Famna
to make them known in the whole land,
so they'll never be chosen for any office,
because such have a vulture-like heart.
To accumulate treasure they would betray all;
the people, the Mother, their relatives,
and at last themselves.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Yes Abe, I might have some 'agenda' after all.


Hmmm.... I don't get what your 'agenda' could be by reading what you just posted.

Spit it out, pls.


#7867    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,392 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 22 November 2011 - 02:26 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 21 November 2011 - 11:25 PM, said:

Look, or listen: the message the OLB is trying to convey to us is ok to me.

No problems with that at all.

It's just that I have some problems with the history it is supposed to cover.

If I sound 'cryptic' again, then know that I am 'somewhat' ... eh... drunk.

But I know you often post when you had a sip too much.

And I like that, really. I respect honest people above any politician.

Again: the politically correct messsage we all should get from the OLB is nothing short of what we should get from reading the New Testament.

If we all would be willing to live according to the 'tex' of the OLB, this world would be a better place.

.
Cheers to that.

Posted Image

Not only that, but only a life true to those ideals will bring you freedom and true liberation.

Maybe because I'm a Libra the message is loud and clear to me.  :)

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#7868    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 22 November 2011 - 06:07 AM

The language of the oldest accepted sources in Oldfrisian is a bit more primitive, less pure than that of the OLB, and in a different (our own, Roman) script, while the OLB is in the Yol-based script and relatively similar to the spoken language of 18th century Frisian farmers.

Now imagine this, just as a thought experiment:

After several centuries of wars, in which the cultural elite of the defeated was systematically killed and remains of their culture likewise destroyed, people who still own a collection of texts in the language of their ancestors (and are still able to read and understand part of it), will hide it carefully and stay 'below the surface'. They will not challenge authorities, live a normal, simple life and keep it a secret, for they would risk the lives of their whole family, if they would attract too much attention.

Charlemagne conquers most of Europe and some of the (East-) Frisians prove to be good allies (like some Dutch collaborated with the Germans in the last war). He sees benefit in making friends with them. The smartest of them are tought to read and write by monks. They are even allowed to write down their own language. As they may not or hardly have learnt this before, and their vocabulary is also limited, their way of writing is less advanced than that of the hidden documents of the suppressed cultural elite. They write down their laws and some poems to praise Charlemagne, as well as the ten Christian commandments; innocent things like that. And those writings are kept by the monasteries and the new 'cultural elite', that evolves out of these 'traitors' (did they have a choice?) or collaborators.

Then, a few hundred years later, these texts are considered to be the oldest texts of this lost culture. Since we don't have older texts, we assume there was no writing tradition before the Romans and later the Franks came. The Frisians would have learnt to write their spoken language down, by the Romans or the Roman Catholics. And this 'primitive' looking and sounding language of the oldest known sources would have evolved in what was our spoken language in the 19th century.

~ ~ ~

The last keeper of the manuscript who received proper instructions by his ancestors of what it is about (Andries OL), and of the importance to keep it a secret, does not get along very well with his own sons (Pieter & Jan), but the boyfriend (Hendrik R.) of one of his daughters (Aafje) becomes a friend and confident. This daughter and her partner live together with her father and this partner (Hendrik Reuvers), who can read and write, becomes the new keeper of the manuscript. His brother-in-law (Jan OL) does not understand the importance of keeping the secret, and when he is drunk or otherwise careless, he boosts about his ancestors and about the manuscript. So will his son (Cornelis), later.

The trustee of the manuscript (Reuvers) teaches his son-in-law (R. Kofman), who moves into the family house, the secrets of the book. But then, shortly after Reuvers dies (1845), the cousin who desperately wants the manuscript, because he has heard something about it, starts to try and get hold of it. First (1845), he fails and goes back empty handed, maybe because he  was mislead to believe his mother (Anna) had it. A few years later (1848) he comes back and now manages to take it by force or maybe even steal it.

He (Cornelis OL) will later tell his version of the story, that he was ment to inherit the book and that his family gave it to him. The family stays silent, because they know the danger of talking too much about the manuscript, and because he is, after all, the one who still carries the family name. For a long time he (Cornelis) tries to unravel the secrets of the book himself, but when he doesn't succeed and sees his end approaching, and because he believes that there is no longer a real (political) danger, he starts asking for help. First only people he trusts, later more and more, real scholars.

The end of the story we know.

Edited by Otharus, 22 November 2011 - 06:36 AM.


#7869    Alewyn

Alewyn

    Remote Viewer

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

Posted 22 November 2011 - 06:14 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 21 November 2011 - 07:42 PM, said:

And I'll not even discuss your original claim in this thread of R1b originating in Western Europe, as it's so wrong as to be embarassing.

cormac

Embarrassing?

No Sir, I will tell you what is embarrassing.

It is embarrassing to admit that one has failed to recognize an absolute lack of objectivity and analytical skills in a person who you naively thought could be engaged in a meaningful and civilized debate. It is embarrassing to acknowledge that you have mistaken arrogance for knowledge; to have searched for chivalry where there is none.

It is embarrassing to have to confess that one have failed for so long to see that, no matter what evidence is presented, the other person will simply disagree on principle (or the lack thereof) . It is embarrassing to have to confess that you ignored other’s warnings about “thread breakers”. They warned that such breakers are not interested in contributing; they merely want to destroy. They are not in search of answers; much less the truth. It is embarrassing to have taken so long to acknowledge this.

You see, in this life there are builders and breakers. Some people are so bitter and disillusioned with life, they cannot help but being negative. They have never contributed anything to society and can only assert themselves by criticizing others. What a way to spend a life. I really pity those people.

To be credible, one must recognize some credibility in others. Nobody is correct all the time but, equally, nobody is wrong all the time.


#7870    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 22 November 2011 - 06:23 AM

View PostAlewyn, on 22 November 2011 - 06:14 AM, said:

Embarrassing?

No Sir, I will tell you what is embarrassing.

It is embarrassing to admit that one has failed to recognize an absolute lack of objectivity and analytical skills in a person who you naively thought could be engaged in a meaningful and civilized debate. It is embarrassing to acknowledge that you have mistaken arrogance for knowledge; to have searched for chivalry where there is none.

It is embarrassing to have to confess that one have failed for so long to see that, no matter what evidence is presented, the other person will simply disagree on principle (or the lack thereof) . It is embarrassing to have to confess that you ignored other’s warnings about “thread breakers”. They warned that such breakers are not interested in contributing; they merely want to destroy. They are not in search of answers; much less the truth. It is embarrassing to have taken so long to acknowledge this.

You see, in this life there are builders and breakers. Some people are so bitter and disillusioned with life, they cannot help but being negative. They have never contributed anything to society and can only assert themselves by criticizing others. What a way to spend a life. I really pity those people.

To be credible, one must recognize some credibility in others. Nobody is correct all the time but, equally, nobody is wrong all the time.
Well said!


#7871    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,360 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008

Posted 22 November 2011 - 06:30 AM

View PostAlewyn, on 22 November 2011 - 06:14 AM, said:

Embarrassing?
No Sir, I will tell you what is embarrassing.

It is embarrassing to admit that one has failed to recognize an absolute lack of objectivity and analytical skills in a person who you naively thought could be engaged in a meaningful and civilized debate. It is embarrassing to acknowledge that you have mistaken arrogance for knowledge; to have searched for chivalry where there is none.

It is embarrassing to have to confess that one have failed for so long to see that, no matter what evidence is presented, the other person will simply disagree on principle (or the lack thereof) . It is embarrassing to have to confess that you ignored other’s warnings about “thread breakers”. They warned that such breakers are not interested in contributing; they merely want to destroy. They are not in search of answers; much less the truth. It is embarrassing to have taken so long to acknowledge this.

You see, in this life there are builders and breakers. Some people are so bitter and disillusioned with life, they cannot help but being negative. They have never contributed anything to society and can only assert themselves by criticizing others. What a way to spend a life. I really pity those people.

To be credible, one must recognize some credibility in others. Nobody is correct all the time but, equally, nobody is wrong all the time.

Yes, it's embarassing. Embarassing when many of your 'facts' are shown to be wrong and you STILL insist on presenting them as accurate when they're not. I've said several times that there were many events happening in the 3rd millenium BC, originating well prior to the OLB's claimed date, yet you still insist on clinging onto the 2193/2194 BC date as if it's a lifesaver. If that's your lifesaver then you're going to drown. If you're wrong, dust yourself off and try it again, but in any case get over it. It's not my fault.

While it may be true that nobody is correct all the time, if one presents the same incorrect information as fact over and over again then yes, they're wrong. Again, not my fault.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#7872    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 22 November 2011 - 09:29 AM

Something nice to study in the context of this threat:
Posted Image


#7873    Knul

Knul

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:22 AM

View PostOtharus, on 22 November 2011 - 06:07 AM, said:

The language of the oldest accepted sources in Oldfrisian is a bit more primitive, less pure than that of the OLB, and in a different (our own, Roman) script, while the OLB is in the Yol-based script and relatively similar to the spoken language of 18th century Frisian farmers.

Now imagine this, just as a thought experiment:

After several centuries of wars, in which the cultural elite of the defeated was systematically killed and remains of their culture likewise destroyed, people who still own a collection of texts in the language of their ancestors (and are still able to read and understand part of it), will hide it carefully and stay 'below the surface'. They will not challenge authorities, live a normal, simple life and keep it a secret, for they would risk the lives of their whole family, if they would attract too much attention.

Charlemagne conquers most of Europe and some of the (East-) Frisians prove to be good allies (like some Dutch collaborated with the Germans in the last war). He sees benefit in making friends with them. The smartest of them are tought to read and write by monks. They are even allowed to write down their own language. As they may not or hardly have learnt this before, and their vocabulary is also limited, their way of writing is less advanced than that of the hidden documents of the suppressed cultural elite. They write down their laws and some poems to praise Charlemagne, as well as the ten Christian commandments; innocent things like that. And those writings are kept by the monasteries and the new 'cultural elite', that evolves out of these 'traitors' (did they have a choice?) or collaborators.

Then, a few hundred years later, these texts are considered to be the oldest texts of this lost culture. Since we don't have older texts, we assume there was no writing tradition before the Romans and later the Franks came. The Frisians would have learnt to write their spoken language down, by the Romans or the Roman Catholics. And this 'primitive' looking and sounding language of the oldest known sources would have evolved in what was our spoken language in the 19th century.

~ ~ ~

The last keeper of the manuscript who received proper instructions by his ancestors of what it is about (Andries OL), and of the importance to keep it a secret, does not get along very well with his own sons (Pieter & Jan), but the boyfriend (Hendrik R.) of one of his daughters (Aafje) becomes a friend and confident. This daughter and her partner live together with her father and this partner (Hendrik Reuvers), who can read and write, becomes the new keeper of the manuscript. His brother-in-law (Jan OL) does not understand the importance of keeping the secret, and when he is drunk or otherwise careless, he boosts about his ancestors and about the manuscript. So will his son (Cornelis), later.

The trustee of the manuscript (Reuvers) teaches his son-in-law (R. Kofman), who moves into the family house, the secrets of the book. But then, shortly after Reuvers dies (1845), the cousin who desperately wants the manuscript, because he has heard something about it, starts to try and get hold of it. First (1845), he fails and goes back empty handed, maybe because he  was mislead to believe his mother (Anna) had it. A few years later (1848) he comes back and now manages to take it by force or maybe even steal it.

He (Cornelis OL) will later tell his version of the story, that he was ment to inherit the book and that his family gave it to him. The family stays silent, because they know the danger of talking too much about the manuscript, and because he is, after all, the one who still carries the family name. For a long time he (Cornelis) tries to unravel the secrets of the book himself, but when he doesn't succeed and sees his end approaching, and because he believes that there is no longer a real (political) danger, he starts asking for help. First only people he trusts, later more and more, real scholars.

The end of the story we know.

Experiment no success ! The language of the OLB is not the purest Oldfrisian as has been said by Hettema, but a mid 19th century linguistic forgery. Just shut your eyes for any proof and continue your dreams.


#7874    Knul

Knul

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:32 AM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 21 November 2011 - 02:48 PM, said:

I thought Gijsbert Japiks might have had the potential to write it, but I'm not really sure about any of that really.

Twiskland does not have to mean Germany in particular.

a-twi-s-k 6, a-twi-s-k-a*, afries., Adv.: nhd. dazwischen; ne. between (Adv.); Q.: S,
W, H; E.: s. a-, twi-s-k; L.: Hh 117a, Rh 615a
a-twi-s-k-a*, afries., Adv.: Vw.: s. a-twi-s-k

Back tomorrow for me.

Twiskland is the middle part of the present Germany, north lived Saxons. south the Alemans (French: Allemagne). Twiskland is where is now the Teutenburger Wald. So the Twiskar were Teutons, etym. *tuisk-, which is not the same as twisk= between.

Edited by Knul, 22 November 2011 - 10:49 AM.


#7875    Otharus

Otharus

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:58 AM

View PostKnul, on 22 November 2011 - 10:22 AM, said:

The language of the OLB is not the purest Oldfrisian as has been said by Hettema...
Dr. J.G. Ottema, Dr. A.T. Reitsma, Prof. Dr. A.J. Vitringa and a few other scholars openly agreed with him.

Many others will have stayed silent out of fear of being ridiculed or otherwise silenced.

Dr. Eelco Verwijs probably changed his mind for that reason as he initially recognised it as true Oldfrisian too.

Quote

Just shut your eyes for any proof and continue your dreams.
Haha, you mean proof like (your most important one as you claim on your site):

Halbertsma must have done it, because some of the month names in OLB resemble Old-English month names,
and Halbertsma had a fascination with Old-English.
(paraphrased)

You too easily accept anything that fits your theory as proof, while you ignore anything that is in conflict with it.

Didn't you recently claim that Cornelis Over de Linden never denied he had created the manuscript himself?

Didn't you recently suggest the OLB might have been created after 1935?

On your site, you refer to many sources about the OLB (compliments for that), but you have not studied them properly.

In fact, you don't seem to know what you are babbling about.

Therefore, your judgement is not of the slightest value to me.

Edited by Otharus, 22 November 2011 - 11:26 AM.