Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12
Riaan

[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

11,638 posts in this topic

Well, do you have any confirmation of the 1189 BC date of Ulysses leaving after the war?

You don't.

And Eratosthenes' calculations is what they used to make up a date.

In his Odyssey, Homer says that Ulysses did not return home but went straigt on his voyage. That would be 1188 BC as accepted today as the end of the Trojan War(or 1189 BC as per the OLB, if you wish).

So yes, this is about as much confirmation as we can glean from Homer. The OLB, of course, gives us the date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In his Odyssey, Homer says that Ulysses did not return home but went straigt on his voyage. That would be 1188 BC as accepted today as the end of the Trojan War(or 1189 BC as per the OLB, if you wish).

So yes, this is about as much confirmation as we can glean from Homer. The OLB, of course, gives us the date.

Source?

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

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And did anyone find out about an etymology of the OLB word "prentar" yet?

A word that - to me - was obviously borrowed from French/Latin?

Apprentice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please be a bit more specific than just saying "some book". This is speculation and not fact.

No it was not. It says: "we worship the Fravashi (angels or spirit) of the holy Frya" and " we worship the Fravashiof the holy Yoishta of the Fryana house" (the house of Frya).

Again speculation.

This is your argument everytime you are in a corner.

For one thing, the Avesta had not been translated before the Oera Linda Book was discovered.

English translation by James Darmesteter (From Sacred Books of the East, American Edition, 1898.

Avestan text based on edition of Karl F. Geldner, Avesta, the Sacred Books of the Parsis, Stuttgart, 1896.

That is 30 years after the OLB came into the public domain.

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.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thach hwat bêrde, an Êgiptalanda thêr wêre en overprester, hel fon âgnum, klâr fon bryn aend licht fon gâst, sin nâm wêre Sêkrops,(*) hy kêm vmb rêd to jêvane.

Doch wat gebeurdé, een Egyptenaar die een overpriester was, helder van oogen, klaar van brein, en verlicht van geest, zijn naam was Cecrops, hij kwam om raad te geven.

Then what happened, an Egyptian high priest, bright of eye, clear of brain, and enlightened of mind, whose name was Cecrops, came to give them advice

"Sêkrops" is being translated as "Cecrops".

OK, from the description in the OLB and what can be found on about Cecrops, these two must be the same:

Cecrops (Greek: Κέκροψ, Kékrops; gen.: Κέκροπος) was a mythical king of Athens who is said to have reigned for fifty-six years. The name is not of Greek origin according to Strabo,[1] or it might mean 'face with a tail': it is said that, born from the earth itself, he had his top half shaped like a man and the bottom half in serpent or fish-tail form. He was the founder and the first king of Athens itself, though preceded in the region by the earth-born king Actaeus of Attica. Cecrops was a culture hero, teaching the Athenians marriage, reading and writing, and ceremonial burial.

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

Cecrops (Kekrôps). A hero of the Pelasgic race, said to have been the first king of Attica. He was married to Agraulos, daughter of Actaeus, by whom he had a son, Erysichthon, who succeeded him as king of Athens, and three daughters, Agraulos, Hersé, and Pandrosos. In his reign Poseidon and Athené contended for the possession of Attica, but Cecrops decided in favor of the goddess. Cecrops is said to have founded Athens--the citadel of which was called Cecropia, after him--to have divided Attica into twelve communities, and to have introduced the first elements of civilized life. (See Athenae.) He instituted marriage, abolished bloody sacrifices, and taught his subjects how to worship the gods. The later Greek writers describe Cecrops as a native of Saïs in Egypt, who led a colony of Egyptians into Attica, and thus introduced from Egypt the arts of civilized life; but this account is rejected by some of the ancients themselves, and by the ablest modern critics.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Cecrops

But now this...

Many people who never studied Greek will pronounce "Cecrops" like "Sekrops"... with an -s- , a common mistake.

There is - as far as I know - know no linguistical explanation for a shift from -s- to -k- or visa versa.

The only explanation is that the one writing the passages about "Sêkrops" made the same error as all those who never studied Greek would have made.

Not exactly sure but I'd be pretty sure if the OLB is a fake whoever wrote it knew Greek.

Here's what I see, for a start the name is not Greek in origin, it's Egyptian, from Sais.

Second, the letter C is not in Frisian, or at least doesn't exist in the Frisian dictionary.

Secrops might actually be the true rendering of this name, the Greeks who didn't use c either, they have k - kappa or gamma where our c is - used an Egyptian name - they rendered it according to their own language - KEkrops, but the name was possibly SE/CE crops to start with. Otherwise into English it would still be KEY/krops.

I'd find it highly unusual that in transferring this word to English as CEcrops, the sound would still be pronounced as KE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Knul’s 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/articles/history-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.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/the-men-of-the-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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reminding me of this, Abe.

It disproved Halbertsma as a possible suspect.

Knul, what is your answer to this?

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 céorle, 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 hûs. 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 æcer-céorl, akkerkerel or farmer, as opposed to hûs-cèorl. 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 hûs-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] Jahwêder jong kerdel âch en brud to sêka ånd is er fif ånd twintich sa âcht-er en wif to håva.

[p.119] Thâ hja landa hipte-n jong kerdel wal vp. In sina handa hêdi-n skild, thêrvp was bråd åend salt lêid.

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 "HûS-", 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 über-hoaxtheorist Jensma did not consider Halbertsma a serious candidate for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I don't talk about psychological arguments, but of real arguments (linguistic, theological, philosophical, geographical, etc.). Hindeloopen got its importance during the Hanseatic times. So it didn't fit in the story.

Edited by Knul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What???!!! :wacko:

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

Did he ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

You did not read my website nor my posts. You just remember the modern English words.

Edited by Knul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.com/articles/history-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.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/the-men-of-the-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:

Puzzler,

I have not studied all of this but, from first impressions, I think you have struck gold. In fact I think you have found the mother lode.

Absolutely bloody well done!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Knul’s 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.

As far as I know only three serious candidates have been mentioned: Verwijs, Haverschmidt and Halbertsma, alone or in combination Verwijs-Haverschmidt and Verwijs-Halbertsma. The general agreement over the last 140 years is, that the OLB is a hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 12

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.