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

TUISCON. According to Tacitus, the Germans, in their songs, gave this name to the founder of their nation. Thuisco or Tuisco is probably the adjective of Theut or Teut; hence theutisch, teutsch. (The Germans call themselves Teutsche or Deutsche, and their country Teutschland or Deutschland.) Tfieut signifies something original, independent, e. g. earth, nation, father and lord. From Theut comes Teutones, the people of Theut; hence also lingua Theutisca, Theodisc, Teutonic, Theutish, Teutsch (called, in a great part of Westphalia, Biisk). In this we recognise the TJiuisco of Tacitus (Germ, 2). The word Deutsch first appears in a document of the year 813; and the first king who was called Konig der Deutschen, rex Teutonicorum, was Otho the Great. (See German Language.) In the northern mytholog}', Thuiscon, Tuiscon, Taut, Tot, Theot, Tuu, &c.? is a god, from whom the Gauls and Germans believed themselves descended. Thuiscon, with the Earth (Artha or Hertha), gave birth to men ; hence called Teutones. But only the inhabitants of the Scandinavian islands, between the extreme coasts of Southern Scandinavia and the Cimbric Chersonesus, were properly called Teutones. The ancient Germans revered Tuiscon as a man with a gray beard, clad in the skin of an animal, holding a sceptre in his right hand, and stretching out the left with extended fingers. According to Julius Ceesar, they offered to him human sacrifices. The name of Tuesday has been derived from this god.

http://www.agepedia.org/wiki/TUISCON

And here you can read the original text which is better because in what I quoted from the first link some letters got mangled or exchanged for other letters:

Tuiscon.jpg

http://books.google.nl/books?id=LPRPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA366&lpg=PA366&dq=tuiscon&source=bl&ots=0eMxUvQVNi&sig=FuwaAWp7J6GIuwXZlSVLAGSkkpc&hl=nl&ei=KmrKTsKrKsiVOpHIycMP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=tuiscon&f=false

BTW: we already discussed Tuisco here:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=184645&st=675

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't exactly validate the historical accuracy of the OLB implied in this thread or Alewyn's book, now does it? THAT'S the whole problem, IMO.

cormac

I will try to explain just this one point from the Oera Linda Book and as simple as possible:

1. The Oera Linda Book describes a natural disaster that struck Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East & Asia in 2194 BC.

(Btw, I agree that the date mentioned should be 2194 BC and not 2193 BC.)

2. There are two aspects of this disaster in the OLB, namely (1) the date and (2) the description of the disaster.

3. The first objective is to see whether we have any evidence of a cataclysmic disaster at the time and in the areas described. I think I have shown sufficient historical and scientific evidence of a global disaster in ca. 2200 BC (which is only 6 years off the OLBs date). This tells me the OLBs date is credible. In addition, Prof. Harvey Weiss tells us that the Akkadian Empire came to a very sudden end in 2193 BC. Puzzler gave us an additional source which described massive floods in China in 2194 BC and Abramelin gave archaeological evidence of a society in Spain that was destroyed in 2194 BC by, inter alia, fire. Archaeologists SUSPECT that this old Spanish town was destroyed by warfare, but in light of all the evidence that have been presented here, it is not unrealistic to suspect that this may have been part of the greater Global disaster.

I repeat, the OLBs date is very credible. I may just add that I have not seen the date of 2194 BC anywhere in Jewish or Christian or, for that matter, in any secular literature other than the OLB and the Frisians old National Calendar; in other words, only in Frisian sources.

4. The second aspect of this event is the OLBs description of the disaster. If The OLB derived its date from the Frisian National Calendar which, in turn, inferred it from Biblical Chronology, then we should agree that the primary source for the OLBs disaster must be the Bible. We should then expect the OLBs description of the disaster to be the same, or at least very similar, to the Biblical disaster or Noahs Flood.

This, however, is not the case. The Bible only describes (what seems like) a massive tsunami and 40 days of rain.

The OLB, however describes earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, volcanic activity, etc. which is much closer to modern archaeological and other scientific discoveries and, in fact, very different from the Bible. This tells me that the Bible could not have been the source of the OLBs disaster.

5. In both OLBs date and description, we have sufficient historical and scientific evidence which tells us that the OLBs account of the disaster (especially the description) could not have been dreamed up in the 19th century. This information was simply not available at the time.

My logic tells me the Oera Linda books description of the disaster is based on fact. Do you have any other explanation?

Edited by Alewyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you, Alewyn, never ever found proof of all that happening at the same time in Europe, 2200 BC, right?

Drought all over North Africa, the Middle East, ok.

Maybe a flooding of the Yangtse in China?

But no volcanoes erupting, no lands submerging or rising up from the seas, no fires all over Europe for 3 years.

You, and nobody else here, showed me any proof of all that happening in Europe 2200 BC.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

I'll tell you what I think:

All these 'witnesses', all were members of the Over de Linden family, or friends.

You think about that one.

++

All the rest is just people who heared them boast about their 'ancient family history'

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. The Oera Linda Book describes a natural disaster that struck Europe, the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East & Asia in 2194 BC.

And as I've already shown, the drought that ended the Old Kingdom did so in 2160 BC, not 2193/2194. And that both of your claims of the end of the Honshan Culture (initially) and Xia Dynasty (currently) also DO NOT match the OLB's date either. 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.

As to the China floods, per your own post on 16 November:

A paleo-hydrological study was carried out in the Qishuihe River valley in the middle reaches of the Yellow River.

The results show that successive floods occurred between 4300 and 4000 BP in association with the abrupt climatic event of 4200 a BP. These overbank floods had the riverbank settlement inundated repeatedly.

So NOT one Great Flood, but a succession of floods. And again, cannot be attributed specifically to 2193/2194 BC, nor with a little lattitude to 2200, specifically.

My logic tells me the Oera Linda books’ description of the disaster is based on fact. Do you have any other explanation?

Evidence tells me that the OLB's claims are, at best, a compilation of events over a 200 or 300 year timeframe force-fit into one specific date, 2193/2194 BC.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some wise words.

[018/16]

NÉN RÉD IS BÉTRE THÀN KVA RÉD

[019/07]

THÀT MÁRA.DÉL KÀN ALSA BLÍD DWÁLA SA HÀT MINRA.DÉL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generation I ~ Jan Andries-son Over de Linden (ca.1718-1794)

He had been a 'klerk' (administrator) in Leeuwarden in the early 1740-s, but moved to Enkhuizen after his marriage in 1745 with Jantje vd Woud from Harlingen. That he was a klerk means that he came from a relatively well-to-do family, or else he would not have learnt to read and write.

I interpreted with the modern meaning of the word, but "klerk" apparently meant scholar or student.

I'll try to do some more research in the Leeuwarden archives this winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tell you what I think:

All these 'witnesses', all were members of the Over de Linden family, or friends.

You think about that one.

++

All the rest is just people who heared them boast about their 'ancient family history'

.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit ; I replied to the wrong post. Now corrected

Try again.

But you, Alewyn, never ever found proof of all that happening at the same time in Europe, 2200 BC, right?

Drought all over North Africa, the Middle East, ok.

Maybe a flooding of the Yangtse in China?

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Common Laws (MÉNA ÉWA), rule #11

[020/33]

THÉRA THAM TO MÀRKA KVME NE MÜGON NAVT NI WOKERJA.

KVMATH THÉR SVM. SA IS.T THÉRA FAMNA PLICHT

HJAM KÀNBÉR TO MAKJANA INVR THÀT ÉLLE LÁND.

TILTHJU HJA NIMMERTHE KÉREN NAVT WRDE TO ENG AMPT

HWAND SOKA HÀVATH EN GÍRA.LIK.HIRTE.

VMBE SKÀT TO GARJA SKOLDE HJA ELLA VRRÉDA

THÀT FOLK. THJU MODER. HJARA SIBBEN

ÀND 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.nl/voorgeschiedenis.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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Common Laws (MÉNA ÉWA), rule #11

[020/33]

THÉRA THAM TO MÀRKA KVME NE MÜGON NAVT NI WOKERJA.

KVMATH THÉR SVM. SA IS.T THÉRA FAMNA PLICHT

HJAM KÀNBÉR TO MAKJANA INVR THÀT ÉLLE LÁND.

TILTHJU HJA NIMMERTHE KÉREN NAVT WRDE TO ENG AMPT

HWAND SOKA HÀVATH EN GÍRA.LIK.HIRTE.

VMBE SKÀT TO GARJA SKOLDE HJA ELLA VRRÉDA

THÀT FOLK. THJU MODER. HJARA SIBBEN

ÀND 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

animated-smileys-drinking-005.gif

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something nice to study in the context of this threat:

Carta_Marina.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

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.