Apol Posted March 31, 2013 #3276 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Like i said: nor the -W- nor the -NG- is in the letter list. It appears someone forgot to add these two letters to the letter list. . This is the NG letter in the letter list on page 46: The W isn't a separate letter, but simply two V's, and the V is in the same letter list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted March 31, 2013 #3277 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Like i said: nor the -W- nor the -NG- is in the letter list. It appears someone forgot to add these two letters to the letter list. . Quite frankly I find you the most real person on this board. NG is between N and M. Apol has posted the original above and here is the copy. It's there. Edited March 31, 2013 by The Puzzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knul Posted March 31, 2013 #3278 Share Posted March 31, 2013 I don't think he would have had to, not like he's in the Church or anything - it's a secret manuscript. Anyway, nothing says this manuscript has to be written in the 13th century. This copy could have been done anytime. What makes it a secret manuscript ? Otttema dates the manuscript in the 13th century. Was he wrong ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted March 31, 2013 #3279 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) What makes it a secret manuscript ? Otttema dates the manuscript in the 13th century. Was he wrong ? I mean to not let monks see them they must have been written outside the Church, which means 'secretive'. Either way, I see no need for the manuscript to be written like that. Edited March 31, 2013 by The Puzzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted March 31, 2013 #3280 Share Posted March 31, 2013 I'm not using any website, but Goffe Jensma's book Het Oera Linda-boek, where there are photos of every page in the original manuscript. That book is indeed of good use for the page-photos and line numbering. But the translation is sometimes horrible and the introduction contains much misinformation, for example already in the first paragraph of the foreword (p.7): "Nu 134 jaar geleden, in 1872, kwam dr. J.G. Ottema met een eerste editie, die in 1876 werd herdrukt, in 1972 gereprint en die ten grondslag ligt aan alle buitenlandse vertalingen. [...] In de buitenlandse vertalingen werd niet alleen Ottema's transcriptie maar ook diens vertaling tot uitgangspunt genomen." Translated (my underlining): "Now 134 years ago, in 1872, dr. Ottema punlished a first edition, that was reprinted in 1876 and 1972, and was the basis of all foreign translations. [...] In the foreign translations, not only Ottema's transcription but also his translation were used as a starting point." The German translation (1933) by Dr. Wirth was NOT based on Ottema's translation. Example: creation myth ("FORMA SKÉDNISE") Ottema, page 13 "Haat trad tot haar binnen. En nu baarden zij elk twaalf zonen en twaalf dochteren, elke juultijd een paar." => hate came in them Wirth, page 16 "Od (Gottes Odem) trat zu ihnen ein und nun gebar jede zwölf Söhne und zwölf Töchter, eine jegliche Julzeit zween." => od (God's breath) came in them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted March 31, 2013 #3281 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) This is 15th century and the paper looks a bit like the Oera Linda book and the writing, although not like the OLB Jul script is plainer like the OLB. Written in Dutch apparently. http://www.guillermi...alli/index.html Translator's Preface by Ottema for interest: http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/olb/olb02.htm Edited March 31, 2013 by The Puzzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted March 31, 2013 Author #3282 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Quite frankly I find you the most real person on this board. NG is between N and M. Apol has posted the original above and here is the copy. It's there. Like I said yesterday, my head wasn't very clear. I didn't mean the -NG- letter, but the -GS- letter. Top is from the original letter sheet, bottom is Ottema's version: Edited March 31, 2013 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted March 31, 2013 Author #3283 Share Posted March 31, 2013 This is the NG letter in the letter list on page 46: The W isn't a separate letter, but simply two V's, and the V is in the same letter list. W was used as one of the 6 letters of Wralda's name, put around a Yule wheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apol Posted March 31, 2013 #3284 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) That book is indeed of good use for the page-photos and line numbering. But the translation is sometimes horrible and the introduction contains much misinformation, for example already in the first paragraph of the foreword (p.7): "Nu 134 jaar geleden, in 1872, kwam dr. J.G. Ottema met een eerste editie, die in 1876 werd herdrukt, in 1972 gereprint en die ten grondslag ligt aan alle buitenlandse vertalingen. [...] In de buitenlandse vertalingen werd niet alleen Ottema's transcriptie maar ook diens vertaling tot uitgangspunt genomen." Translated (my underlining): "Now 134 years ago, in 1872, dr. Ottema punlished a first edition, that was reprinted in 1876 and 1972, and was the basis of all foreign translations. [...] In the foreign translations, not only Ottema's transcription but also his translation were used as a starting point." The German translation (1933) by Dr. Wirth was NOT based on Ottema's translation. Example: creation myth ("FORMA SKÉDNISE") Ottema, page 13 "Haat trad tot haar binnen. En nu baarden zij elk twaalf zonen en twaalf dochteren, elke juultijd een paar." => hate came in them Wirth, page 16 "Od (Gottes Odem) trat zu ihnen ein und nun gebar jede zwölf Söhne und zwölf Töchter, eine jegliche Julzeit zween." => od (God's breath) came in them Yes, I love Jensma's line numbering. In at least one page the numbering is wrong, though, but I think a book without some faults doesn't exist. Jensma is as exact as one can expect. He has done a great and important work and brought the Oera Linda Book onto the stage again. I don't agree with him in all matters, but that's a completely different thing. Wirth's translation is as 'confusing' as my own Norwegian. He changed the order of the texts... Edited March 31, 2013 by Apol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted March 31, 2013 Author #3285 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Ottema, page 13 "Haat trad tot haar binnen. En nu baarden zij elk twaalf zonen en twaalf dochteren, elke juultijd een paar." => hate came in them Wirth, page 16 "Od (Gottes Odem) trat zu ihnen ein und nun gebar jede zwölf Söhne und zwölf Töchter, eine jegliche Julzeit zween." => od (God's breath) came in them And it was Reichenbach who first used the term "OD" in the meaning as used in the OLB: The Odic force (also called Od [õd], Odyle, Önd, Odes, Odylic, Odyllic, or Odems) is the name given in the mid-19th century to a hypothetical vital energy or life force by Baron Carl von Reichenbach. Von Reichenbach coined the name from that of the Norse god Odin in 1845. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Odic_force . Edited March 31, 2013 by Abramelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted March 31, 2013 Author #3286 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Ottema changed and 'corrected' some things in the OLB, for god knows what reason. For instance: why did he change the name "Jes-us" into "Jessos"? I think I know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted March 31, 2013 #3287 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Jensma is as exact as one can expect. The mistake I mentioned is not a minor one. Wirth's German translation of 1933 caused more turmoil than the English one by Sandbach of 1876. Jensma already published about the OLB in 1992 and wrote his doctors-thesis about it (published 2004). To start his 2006 book with a major untruth in the first paragraph of the foreword is very sloppy (to put it mildly), and just one example because there are many more. I don't think Jensma is a conspirator, but I do suspect him of having a (religious) agenda. He started his 1992 article with two bible quotes, as was mentioned before in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted March 31, 2013 #3288 Share Posted March 31, 2013 And it was Reichenbach who first used the term "OD" in the meaning as used in the OLB Martin Luther used the term "Gottes Odem" in his translation (16th century) of the creation myth from the Christian bible. Same context: God gives life to Adam. I don't know where I read it but in Oldsaxon or Oldnorse the word would also mean something like spirit or something related to life-force or fertility. Reichenbach chose his term well, but he was not the first to make that association. The "oôt" in my signatury (in a proverb that I read in a westfrisian dictionary) appearantly is a virtually indestructable weed. Would make sense if "od" would mean life-force, would it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted March 31, 2013 #3289 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) Ottema changed and 'corrected' some things in the OLB, for god knows what reason. For instance: why did he change the name "Jes-us" into "Jessos"? I think I know why. On 13 October 2011, 'Otharus' said: BTW, in the manuscript (p.138) the names are "JES-US", "KRIS-EN" and "BûDA"."Jessos" was used by Ottema, probably as an attempt to not offend Christians too much; an attempt that failed. adding edit: I wish you strength, Abramelin. Edited March 31, 2013 by gestur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted March 31, 2013 Author #3290 Share Posted March 31, 2013 On 13 October 2011, 'Otharus' said: adding edit: I wish you strength, Abramelin. Thanks Gestur. I will need it. == You said: BTW, in the manuscript (p.138) the names are "JES-US", "KRIS-EN" and "BûDA". "Jessos" was used by Ottema, probably as an attempt to not offend Christians too much; an attempt that failed. I think he knew what many would think: that it is obvious the paragraph was based on the New Testament, or based on some 19th century ideas about who Jesus really was. Read Gosa's texts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted March 31, 2013 #3291 Share Posted March 31, 2013 How many of us would recognise a "Linda" tree (German and Dutch: Linde) if we saw one? Have a good look at the shape of the leave: What we could call "heart-shaped", no? Here is a human heart: What looks more like our universal symbol of love? In several very old german and dutch love-songs, the Linde tree plays a role (couples kissing or making love under a Linde tree). Just thinking out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apol Posted March 31, 2013 #3292 Share Posted March 31, 2013 And it was Reichenbach who first used the term "OD" in the meaning as used in the OLB: The Odic force (also called Od [õd], Odyle, Önd, Odes, Odylic, Odyllic, or Odems) is the name given in the mid-19th century to a hypothetical vital energy or life force by Baron Carl von Reichenbach. Von Reichenbach coined the name from that of the Norse god Odin in 1845. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Odic_force . Maybe he was the first who used it in that particular way, but the Old Norse óðr means 'strong desire'. http://archive.org/details/gamalnorskordbok00haeguoft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted March 31, 2013 Author #3293 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) How many of us would recognise a "Linda" tree (German and Dutch: Linde) if we saw one? Have a good look at the shape of the leave: What we could call "heart-shaped", no? Here is a human heart: What looks more like our universal symbol of love? In several very old german and dutch love-songs, the Linde tree plays a role (couples kissing or making love under a Linde tree). Just thinking out loud. The Linden Tree was also a symbol of Frya/Freya, and a symbol of freedom and liberation. . Edited March 31, 2013 by Abramelin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted March 31, 2013 #3294 Share Posted March 31, 2013 I think he knew what many would think: that it is obvious the paragraph was based on the New Testament, or based on some 19th century ideas about who Jesus really was. To me that is not obvious at all. I have seen a convincing BBC documentary about a theory that Jesus of Nazareth had had (part of) his education with Budhist monks in India. His original name may have been "Isa", while in India he may have received a new/other name "Jesus", which would have been one of the other names of Budha. This still happens nowadays, that spiritual teachers have various names and that initiates receive a new name from their teacher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted March 31, 2013 Author #3295 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Maybe he was the first who used it in that particular way, but the Old Norse óðr means 'strong desire'. http://archive.org/d...rdbok00haeguoft But 'strong desire' wouldn't fit into what the OLB tells us about "OD". Reichenbach's vital energy or life force does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apol Posted March 31, 2013 #3296 Share Posted March 31, 2013 The mistake I mentioned is not a minor one. Wirth's German translation of 1933 caused more turmoil than the English one by Sandbach of 1876. Jensma already published about the OLB in 1992 and wrote his doctors-thesis about it (published 2004). To start his 2006 book with a major untruth in the first paragraph of the foreword is very sloppy (to put it mildly), and just one example because there are many more. I don't think Jensma is a conspirator, but I do suspect him of having a (religious) agenda. He started his 1992 article with two bible quotes, as was mentioned before in this thread. Maybe you're right in that. I've also suspected Jensma having a religious agenda, because then his theories will make more sense to me. There are so many strange theories about the OLB, though, that it would just fit in with all the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted March 31, 2013 Author #3297 Share Posted March 31, 2013 To me that is not obvious at all. I have seen a convincing BBC documentary about a theory that Jesus of Nazareth had had (part of) his education with Budhist monks in India. His original name may have been "Isa", while in India he may have received a new/other name "Jesus", which would have been one of the other names of Budha. This still happens nowadays, that spiritual teachers have various names and that initiates receive a new name from their teacher. And that is one of the ideas running around during the 19th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted March 31, 2013 #3298 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Reichenbach's vital energy or life force does. So does Oldnorse "spirit". And that is one of the ideas running around during the 19th century. It may be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apol Posted March 31, 2013 #3299 Share Posted March 31, 2013 (edited) But 'strong desire' wouldn't fit into what the OLB tells us about "OD". Reichenbach's vital energy or life force does. I would say it does - it may suit perfectly. Why should 'vital energy' or 'life force' suit any better? The word also exist in New Norwegian as od. Edited March 31, 2013 by Apol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ott Posted March 31, 2013 #3300 Share Posted March 31, 2013 the Old Norse óðr means 'strong desire'. "Strong desire" is a perfect description of "life force". I can see how this evolved from a general meaning into something more specific like "rage" (in some oldnorse texts) and in Latin "hate" (odium), from which Ottema got his translation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts