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

Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
6099 replies to this topic

#3901    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,161 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 09 May 2013 - 05:19 AM

"and that OLB mentions Askars being asked to go help the Rus in Russia."

Can you tell me where in the OLB we can read about that?

-

Were those Prasi blond and blue-eyed, is it known they came from far away?

Was there a king called Friso in the Nanda Emipre?

-

The Magiar were the priest caste of a people called Finns, and probably the "Mager" from Willem van Haren's poem; these Magiar were Zoroastrians, like WvH's Friso.

-

Is the OLB version of Friso a Zoroastrian?

-

How is it possible for a group of people (Fryans) to live among a totally unrelated people (Indians) for 1200 years, and not change looks, religion and language.


#3902    NO-ID-EA

NO-ID-EA

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 343 posts
  • Joined:14 Oct 2012

Posted 09 May 2013 - 08:01 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 09 May 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

"and that OLB mentions Askars being asked to go help the Rus in Russia."

Can you tell me where in the OLB we can read about that?

-

Were those Prasi blond and blue-eyed, is it known they came from far away?

Was there a king called Friso in the Nanda Emipre?

-

The Magiar were the priest caste of a people called Finns, and probably the "Mager" from Willem van Haren's poem; these Magiar were Zoroastrians, like WvH's Friso.

-

Is the OLB version of Friso a Zoroastrian?

-

How is it possible for a group of people (Fryans) to live among a totally unrelated people (Indians) for 1200 years, and not change looks, religion and language.

Its not possible for them not to change , who said they would not change ? ...after all this time they would probably consider themselves Indians , but they could be aware from their traditions that they originally came from somewhere else.

www.raiputana.htmlplanet.com/scy_raj/scy_raj1.html


The Scythic origins of the Rajput race.............Chapter 1 ... about the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire , N.west and Western India was under the control of Scythic Empires, the scythic or Saka,SaccaKingdom stretched from the vindyas to the Oxus , from Bihar to Persia.
These mainly Sun worshipping and Zoroastrian kingdoms eventually collapsed as a result of Buddhism ...

Colonel Todd..."it is a singular fact that there is no available datafor pre 4th century Rajput families , all of whom were brought from the North there was a grand irruption of Getic races from central Asia, who established themselves in kingdoms in the Punjab and on the Indus . The Sakas are clearly distinct from the Aryas ,and Sogdians and Cathii are all representative of Scythian races ."..........."in addition the Sakas include Greek legends ,this indicates they were absorbed into the Rajputs of today, who possess  a considerable Greek legacy ."

Chapter 2......Anthropologic Evidence.............The Rajputs belong to a Dolicocephalic (long heads) caucasoidal race and are one of the first races to enter India ,The Rajputs are related to Scythic races , are Tall and Fair , closely resembling their Scythic forbears , not unlike the Parthian Kings.

Chapter 3 ......Caesar informs us that the Celts of Britain would not eat either the Hare , the Goose , or Domestic Fowl ,The Rajputs will hunt the first , but will not eat them , Nor the Goose , as it is sacred top the God of hunting (Hara ) they will eat Jungle fowl , but will not eat any type of domesticated fowl .

Stone circles.... the Jesuits found stone circles among the Rajput Architecture .....Baron Metcalfe noted " it would not require great ingenuity to prove an analogy , if not a common origin between the druidic circles  , and the Indo-Scythian monuments of the ancient Rajputs.

The Scythic Saccae worshipped a god calles "Gaeto Syrus " the Roman Sol , Sanskrit Surya , Nordic Thor ( the commentators of Edda mention the nordics pronounced Th as SS).... indeed the Saccae may well be the ancestors of Saxons in Europe , thus Sanskrit Surya may be derived from Scythic Syrus.

Unlike other Indians their religion is decidedly non Brahamanic , and they do not revere the vedas , nor do they consider the Brahmin s racial supremacy.

Look i am interested in trying to find out who the OLB people became when they went to India , if thats at all possible , if you have no interest in that , then just ignore my posts . no problem .


#3903    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,779 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:06 PM

Sorry, NO-ID-EA, the link doesn't work,  for us to read the complete thread instead of the jumble you have posted.
Could you refer to a valid /working link?

Moreover, i have emailed a Rajput Historian about this particular claims/references given by you and i hope he could set the matter straight.

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#3904    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,161 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:45 PM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 09 May 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Sorry, NO-ID-EA, the link doesn't work,  for us to read the complete thread instead of the jumble you have posted.
Could you refer to a valid /working link?

Moreover, i have emailed a Rajput Historian about this particular claims/references given by you and i hope he could set the matter straight.

I think this is the right link:

http://rajputana.htm...j/scy_raj1.html


#3905    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,779 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:55 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 09 May 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

I think this is the right link:

http://rajputana.htm...j/scy_raj1.html

and look at the references of the article

Quote

  • `Punjab Castes', Sir Denzil Ibbetson, 1916, part of `Panjab Ethnography', Simla, 1883 (Report on Census of 1881, Punjab); reprinted in `Landmarks of Indian Anthropology', Vol. 17., Cosmo Publications, New Delhi 1987.
  • `Annals and Antiquities of Rajast'han', or `The Central and Western Rapoot States of India', Lieut.-Col. James Tod in 2 vols., York Place, 1832, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.; reprint K.M.N. Publishers, New Delhi 1971.
  • `The Rajpoot Tribes', by C.T.Metcalfe, reprinted in `Landmarks in Indian Anthropology', vol.52 (i) & (ii), Cosmo Publications, N.Delhi 1987; p.1-257 in vol. 52(i), p.257ff in vol. 52(ii)
  • `New South Asia Policy and Collapse of the Brahminist Empire in South Asia', by G.S.Khalsa, published by Dr.Paramjit Singh Ajrawat, Sikh Educational Press, Canada 1997.
  • `The People of India' , by Sir H.H.Risley, 1915 2nd ed., ed. by Sir W. Crooke 1969

Ant and all of the references are studies dating to the1st 20 years of last century.
Loads and Lots of water have flown under the bridge since then.
New methods, including DNA analysis, tracking are now available.
The author of the article has not made the effort to base his research on scientific aspects also, but purely on anecdotal history.

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#3906    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,161 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:01 PM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 09 May 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

and look at the references of the article



Ant and all of the references are studies dating to the1st 20 years of last century.
Loads and Lots of water have flown under the bridge since then.
New methods, including DNA analysis, tracking are now available.
The author of the article has not made the effort to base his research on scientific aspects also, but purely on anecdotal history.

Most are even older than that:

1881, 1883, 1832, 1987, 1997, 1915
http://rajputana.htm...j/scy_rajr.html


#3907    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,161 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:11 PM

View PostNO-ID-EA, on 09 May 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

Its not possible for them not to change , who said they would not change ? ...after all this time they would probably consider themselves Indians , but they could be aware from their traditions that they originally came from somewhere else.

<snip>

Look i am interested in trying to find out who the OLB people became when they went to India , if thats at all possible , if you have no interest in that , then just ignore my posts . no problem .

The OLB never mentions Friso and his people as looking foreign, talking a foreign language, or having a foreign religion.

The same thing a Van den Bergh (19th century, decades before the OLB was published) wondered about concerning Friso, king of the Gangarides and Prasiates.

Page 347 of:
De Nederlandsche volksromans: eene bijdrage tot de geschiedenis onzer letterkunde.
Laurens Philippe Charles Van den Bergh

http://books.google....prasii"&f=false


I have said in part -1- of this thread thatr we should keep our eyes on this guy, Van den Bergh...

On page 244/245 of the pdf, he mentions 3 large migrations:

-1- from Middle-Asia to Europe, other parts of Asia and Northern Africa
-2- the great migration after the fall of Troy, when both the Troyans and the Greeks settled new colonies
-3- the migrations after the death of Alexander the Great.


Sounds familiar?

Page 262 Friso, or the origin of the Frisians

More than 3 centuries BC there was an empire along the shores of the Ganges, and it was called Fresia, also called Prasia or Pharasia. It was called Fresia bcause of its wealth.


Van den Bergh really believes this myth could be true, and also tries to explain the language 'problem'.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 09 May 2013 - 01:42 PM.


#3908    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,161 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:19 PM

Some tidbits:

India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemodos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus, which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile.

http://archive.world...s.asp?TID=10828

The ancient Greek name for the Himalayas, Hemodos is derived from the Sanskrit Haimavata or the Prakrit Haimota, both meaning “snowy”.

http://onlinelibrary...enticated=false

Through the mist of vague reports and Jonesian misinterpretation it is difficult to recreate the course of events that led to the revolt at Beas which came as a serious jolt to Alexander's plans. Did the army refuse to fight the Prasii or only to march eastwards? The important point which all the writers miss is that the empire of the Prasii was not in the east as Jones taught but lay westward in the Gedrosia-Carmania-Seistan area. If Alexander had really wanted to move eastward it could not have been to conquer the Prasii. If he had learnt that the fertile plains of the Ganges were only few days march away and wanted to be there for mere expansion of his Empire, he could have expected little resistance.

http://www.newsfinde...exander_part_2/

Taxila
http://www.unexplain...10#entry4331893

Liudgert, father of Gosa was born west of the Punjab:
http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/#bx


#3909    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,779 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:42 PM

After 261 pages of discussion on the Orea Linda, may i ask all of you debaters, is there any authenticity to the book?
Is it a true account of History or is it a Hoax?
or is it some propaganda Fiction created to deliberately discredit someone?
or is it Just a work of fiction?

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#3910    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,161 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 09 May 2013 - 02:19 PM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 09 May 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

After 261 pages of discussion on the Orea Linda, may i ask all of you debaters, is there any authenticity to the book?
Is it a true account of History or is it a Hoax?
or is it some propaganda Fiction created to deliberately discredit someone?
or is it Just a work of fiction?

You can ask any of us, but I think you will get a different answer from each one.

In my opinion it is a fabrication.

Why was it created? That's another question.

Who did it? Several 19th century 'suspects', like Over de Linden, Halbertsma, Haverschmidt, Verwijs, Van den Bergh, and others.

It's kind of interesting to see how people - including me - reason. When you believe it is a true account of ancient European history, you will dig up old sources, like the writings of the ancient Romans and Greeks, or old Frisian legends, and see them as proof of the validity of the OLB. When you think it's a fabrication, you will use these same sources as proof it is a fabrication because these ancient writers/writings were known by the socalled suspects from the 19th century. Halbertsma, for one, had an incredibly extensive library on many topics and he spoke/understood many languages (French, German, English, Dutch, Frisian, Old Frisian, Old German, Gothic, Latin, Greek). Over de Linden also had lots of books covering many topics in the OLB.


And it's 261 + 776 = 1037 pages in total, lol. You forgot about part -1- of this thread.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 09 May 2013 - 02:31 PM.


#3911    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 749 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011

Posted 09 May 2013 - 02:34 PM

I don't have any issue with it being considered a fabrication.
Which account of history isn't?


#3912    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,161 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 09 May 2013 - 02:43 PM

View PostVan Gorp, on 09 May 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

I don't have any issue with it being considered a fabrication.
Which account of history isn't?

No, for you it is just an opportunity to post your play with language and etymology.

But all the others participating in this thread want to know how much of the MS is about real history and how much is not.

The nucleus of the OLB is this: there was once a European civilization (of before 2194 BCE to several centuries BCE) which stood for all things good, that influenced moral, language and culture in other countries (like around the Med, the Middle East and India). After a (global?) disaster (2194 BCE) things changed. Foreign people invaded Fryan (European) territory, and a couple of thousand years later all memory of this once great civilization was gone or diluted. And it were the fanatic Christians who finally did them in.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 09 May 2013 - 02:58 PM.


#3913    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 749 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011

Posted 09 May 2013 - 02:53 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 09 May 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

No, for you it is just an opportunity to post your play with language and etymology.

But all the others participating in this thread want to know how much of the MS is about real history and how much is not.

The nucleus is this: there was once a European civilization (of before 2194 BCE to several centuries BCE) which stood for all things good, that influenced moral, language and culture in other countries (like around the Med, the Middle East and India).

Not totally so Abe, I'm also truely interested in what is real the MS is saying.
Only thing is I don't think all the other 'sources' by which the account of OLB is compared with is that genuine/scientific.
The sceptism about OLB is far greater than for all the other accounts (eg Tacitus: where is the search for prove of authenticity in that)

Known history is a fest of linking assumptions.  Possibility: Greek script could be later than Latin script for instance.
The years mentionned in OLB makes it hard to believe, but imo just added to fit the framework people are used to.


#3914    Knul

Knul

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 09 May 2013 - 03:04 PM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 09 May 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

After 261 pages of discussion on the Orea Linda, may i ask all of you debaters, is there any authenticity to the book?
Is it a true account of History or is it a Hoax?
or is it some propaganda Fiction created to deliberately discredit someone?
or is it Just a work of fiction?

My view: It's a hoax, written 1836-1845 by Dr. J.H. Halbertsma in a simplified Oldfrisian language. Halbertsma was a baptist minister, linguist and novellist (together with his two brothers).The year 1836 is meaningful, because in the OLB the word 'eigendommelijkheid' is used, which has been characterized as a new word by Mr. Jacob van Lennep in his Roos van Dekema (1836). The text of Halbertsma has been transcribed in juul-script by bookseller and printer Ernst Stadermann (Den Helder), friend of the owner of the MS Cornelis over de Linden. The key for the transcription is given in the OLB.  The OLB is a draft text for a printer. When Stadermann died april 1867 the work had not yet been finished and parts were hidden in an eal smokery in Enkhuizen in order to get an old natural coating. Cornelis over de Linden then tried to sell the transcribed MS, but couldn't find anyone to translate the text.

Edited by Knul, 09 May 2013 - 03:05 PM.


#3915    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,161 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 09 May 2013 - 03:16 PM

View PostVan Gorp, on 09 May 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Not totally so Abe, I'm also truely interested in what is real the MS is saying.
Only thing is I don't think all the other 'sources' by which the account of OLB is compared with is that genuine/scientific.
The sceptism about OLB is far greater than for all the other accounts (eg Tacitus: where is the search for prove of authenticity in that)

Known history is a fest of linking assumptions.  Possibility: Greek script could be later than Latin script for instance.
The years mentionned in OLB makes it hard to believe, but imo just added to fit the framework people are used to.

The older sources may not be genuine, but they were available in the 19th century.