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 11
Abramelin

Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

6,100 posts in this topic

This upstart, who got his bachelor of arts last year, boasts on his website about his almost encyclopedic knowledge of classical literature:

... but admits to be far less knowledgeable on other topics.

I'd advise him to be more modest on topics about which he doesn't have a clue.

How many of the following applies to people who think Oera Linda Book is not a forgery?

treats myths, legends, sagas and similar literature as literal truth

is neither critical nor skeptical in its reading of ancient historians, taking their claims at face value and ignoring empirical or logical evidence contrary to the claims of the ancient

is on a mission, not a quest, seeking to support some contemporary political or religious agenda rather than find out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the past

often denies that there is such a thing as historical truth, clinging to the extreme skeptical notion that only what is absolutely certain can be called 'true' and nothing is absolutely certain, so nothing is true

often maintains that history is nothing but mythmaking and that different histories are not to be compared on such traditional academic standards as accuracy, empirical probability, logical consistency, relevancy, completeness, fairness, honesty, etc., but on moral or political grounds

is selective in its use of ancient documents, citing favorably those that fit with its agenda, and ignoring or interpreting away those documents which don't fit

considers the possibility of something being true as sufficient to believe it is true if it fits with one's agenda

often maintains that there is a conspiracy to suppress its claims because of racism, atheism or ethnocentrism, or because of opposition to its political or religious agenda

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudohs.html

About all them apply.

Anyway for what it is worth my view: The Oera Linda Book was written as Nordicist pseudo-history (this is why only Nazis took interest in it). The whole thing was written as a product of northern inferiority complex - the 19th century forger was insecure over the fact ancient civilization was southern and northern europeans at that time were still living in mud or straw huts. So instead he writes revisionist history that northern europeans founded ancient civilization in southern europe e.g. King Minos of Crete actually being a Frisian, and other nonsense. Also the revisionism is ridiculous to the extreme of ethnogenesis: according to the Oera Linda Book not only did northern europeans found ancient civlization but the whole of humanity at one stage sprung from there...

Hatred found its way among them.

They each bore twelve sons and twelve daughters—at every Juul-time a couple. Thence come all mankind.

Lyda was black, with hair curled like a lamb's; her eyes shone like stars, and shot out glances like those of a bird of prey.

Finda was yellow, and her hair was like the mane of a horse. She could not bend a tree, but where Lyda killed one lion she killed ten.

Frya was white like the snow at sunrise, and the blue of her eyes vied with the rainbow.

This is discredited 19th century race typology when the world was split into three races: "Mongoloids" (yellow), "Negroids" (black) and "Caucasoids" (white).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The septics have their own dictionary I see: well bravo, that must be convenient from time to time

Word of the day: Pseudohistory. I provide you with the definition. Learn your lessons well boys and girls.

Here is another:

septic (adj.) dictionary.gif c.1600, from Latin septicus "of or pertaining to putrefaction," from Greek septikos "characterized by putrefaction," from sepein "make rotten or putrid, cause to rot" (see sepsis). Septic tank is attested from 1902.

Sniff sniff, open the windows please :-)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... people who think Oera Linda Book is not a forgery

How many of them do you actually know, Oliver?

And even if you would know a few, you should not generalize.

They are not all the same.

Since you represent part of the readers, I thank you for speaking your mind and welcome you to this thread.

I am prepared to seriously answer your questions and comments.

But before we continue, please tell us, what is it you really want from taking part of this discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oliver, most ancient texts conceive the beginning of mankind in some way, springing from an earthborn parent or celestial one, or more. This is not that strange nor should we really believe that part of the manuscript as being a real event that they saw and recorded as happening that way - that is just poetic license of creation, based on the Gods and thoughts of their own culture and timeframe.

That doesn't make the more historical parts of the manuscript untrue imo.

Why can't legendary King Minos be Fryan (North European)? Do you have evidence of who he really was before becoming a mythical figure?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The culture (Unetice 2300-1600BC) is distinguished by its characteristic metal objects including ingot torcs, flat axes, flat triangular daggers, bracelets with spiral-ends, disk- and paddle-headed pins and curl rings which are distributed over a wide area of Central Europe and beyond.

The ingots are found in hoards that can contain over six hundred pieces. Axe-hoards are common as well, the hoard of Dieskau (Saxony) contained 293 flanged axes.

The famous Sky Disk of Nebra is associated with Central Germany groups of the Únětice culture

The Únětice culture had trade links with the British Wessex culture.

http://en.wikipedia....Unetice_culture

The Wessex culture is the predominant prehistoric culture of central and southern Britain during the early Bronze Age, originally defined by the British archaeologist Stuart Piggott in 1938.[1] It should not be confused with the later Saxon kingdom of Wessex.

The culture is related to the Hilversum culture of the southern Netherlands, Belgium and northern France, and linked to the northern France armorican tumuli,[2] prototyped with the Middle Rhine group of Beaker culture and commonly subdivided in the consecutive phases Wessex I (2000-1650 BC) and Wessex II (1650-1400). Wessex I is closely associated with the construction and use of the later phases of Stonehenge.

They buried their dead under barrows using inhumation at first but later using cremation and often with rich grave goods. They appear to have had wide ranging trade links with continental Europe, importing amber from the Baltic, jewellery from modern day Germany, gold from Brittany as well as daggers and beads from Mycenaean Greece and vice versa. The wealth from such trade probably permitted the Wessex people to construct the second and third (megalithic) phases of Stonehenge and also indicates a powerful form of social organisation.

http://en.wikipedia..../Wessex_culture

.

The Hilversum culture is a prehistoric material culture found in middle Bronze Age in the region of the southern Netherlands and northern Belgium. It has been associated with the Wessex culture from the same period in southern England, and is one of the material cultures of this part of northwestern continental Europe which has been proposed to have had a "Nordwestblock" language which was indo-european, but neither Germanic nor Celtic.

http://en.wikipedia....lversum_culture

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oliver, most ancient texts conceive the beginning of mankind in some way, springing from an earthborn parent or celestial one, or more. This is not that strange nor should we really believe that part of the manuscript as being a real event that they saw and recorded as happening that way - that is just poetic license of creation, based on the Gods and thoughts of their own culture and timeframe.

The Oera Linda Book isn't an ancient text and its creation account employs 19th century tripartite racial taxonomy ("Black", "White", "Yellow") because that was when it was written. Dividing mankind into three major groups is not something that appears in classical literature.

Why can't legendary King Minos be Fryan (North European)? Do you have evidence of who he really was before becoming a mythical figure?

There is no evidence of a Frisian colonization of Crete, further Minos' genealogy is Greek. He was not some Germanic.

The forger behind the Oera Linda Book was driven by a Nordicist or Aryanist agenda, which is why Oera Linda Book become known as "Himmler's Bible" and was used as propaganda by the Nazis. It describes golden-haired progenitors of ancient civilizations such as Minoan Crete and Egypt as coming out of northern Europe after a cataclysm. This is all fantasy of course - rooted in an inferiority complex that northern Europe actually had no ancient civilization equivalent to Egypt, Rome, Greece etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of them do you actually know, Oliver?

There are none who are serious. No scholar or historian considers the Oera Linda Book to be a non-forgery. The "OeraLindists" who consider it real are a few neo-Nazi cranks on places like Stormfront, or people who just want to claim it is not a forgery (when it clearly is) to feel special or get attention. I'll put you in the latter camp, however your website quotes Nazis like Herman Wirth etc as evidence, so you could overlap with the former.

Regardless, no I do not think it is a fake. It is extremely plausible. It's much more believable than racial equality.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t347302/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The culture (Unetice 2300-1600BC) is distinguished by its characteristic metal objects including ingot torcs, flat axes, flat triangular daggers, bracelets with spiral-ends, disk- and paddle-headed pins and curl rings which are distributed over a wide area of Central Europe and beyond.

The ingots are found in hoards that can contain over six hundred pieces. Axe-hoards are common as well, the hoard of Dieskau (Saxony) contained 293 flanged axes.

The famous Sky Disk of Nebra is associated with Central Germany groups of the Únětice culture

The Únětice culture had trade links with the British Wessex culture.

http://en.wikipedia....Unetice_culture

The Wessex culture is the predominant prehistoric culture of central and southern Britain during the early Bronze Age, originally defined by the British archaeologist Stuart Piggott in 1938.[1] It should not be confused with the later Saxon kingdom of Wessex.

The culture is related to the Hilversum culture of the southern Netherlands, Belgium and northern France, and linked to the northern France armorican tumuli,[2] prototyped with the Middle Rhine group of Beaker culture and commonly subdivided in the consecutive phases Wessex I (2000-1650 BC) and Wessex II (1650-1400). Wessex I is closely associated with the construction and use of the later phases of Stonehenge.

They buried their dead under barrows using inhumation at first but later using cremation and often with rich grave goods. They appear to have had wide ranging trade links with continental Europe, importing amber from the Baltic, jewellery from modern day Germany, gold from Brittany as well as daggers and beads from Mycenaean Greece and vice versa. The wealth from such trade probably permitted the Wessex people to construct the second and third (megalithic) phases of Stonehenge and also indicates a powerful form of social organisation.

http://en.wikipedia..../Wessex_culture

.

The Hilversum culture is a prehistoric material culture found in middle Bronze Age in the region of the southern Netherlands and northern Belgium. It has been associated with the Wessex culture from the same period in southern England, and is one of the material cultures of this part of northwestern continental Europe which has been proposed to have had a "Nordwestblock" language which was indo-european, but neither Germanic nor Celtic.

http://en.wikipedia....lversum_culture

Thanks for this info Puzzler.

As compared to Roman or Greek 'culture', regardless OLB, I don't see any reason to have an inferiority complex -> should we may be?

At the contrary. For instance overall literacy here, has been since the beginning much higher than the south.

Language feeling and the easyness to learn new languages: idem dito.

Work ethic: idem dito.

But I'll stop, I don't want to come accross as a quasi nazi with an inferiority complex.

BTW Oliver: still reading your Atlantis site: nice work.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so why did these Frisians migrate thousands of miles across the globe creating civilizations? Why not just create one in Scandinavia or Germany? We are told in the Oera Linda Book that these blonde Frisian colonists who escaped a North Sea cataclysm founded Minoan Crete, Carthage, among numerous others. Yet no civilization in their ancient Germanic homeland ever appeared, funny that. And of course any evidence linking the Frisians to these civilizations thousands of miles away has also magically vanished...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also countless problems with chronology. The Frisians under "Minno" are described as having founded Minoan civilization post-2194/3 BC. Yet, the Minoan civilization was already flourishing 500 years before as established by archaeology.

http://en.wikipedia....an_civilization

Do "Oeralindists" accept there are hundreds (if not thousands) of errors in the Oera Linda Book? If so, how do you decide what is real?

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oliver, what a coincidence, many of your questions are answered quite straightforward when reading OLB. Have you had the occasion to read it fully yet? Fe Scandinavia was part of the bigger whole, Germany is by many interpreted as the border Twiskland (with thick forests and wild beasts).

The 'missing' civilisation (maritiem active) you point too can be less hidden if you consider the early known and rather continual maritiem involvement (Baltic, Scand, Med, India, ...) of the low countries, at least par of Portugese and Spaniards. This can have a base in a less known and earlier history.

For me it seems that history of OLB repeated itself afterwards for a big deal. Everyone can draw different conclusions, but OLB remains in this way an interesting script.

To end: the thousands of faults in OLB? It draws a slightly different history, but if you think all is known and correct in the schoolbooks you will find idd many errors. Who or what is wrong, up to everyone to decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to own Robert Scrutton's The Other Atlantis (1977) which covers the Oera Linda Book and "Atland". I binned the book though about 6 or 7 years back, it is pseudo-history like von Daniken . Atland shouldn't be linked to Atlantis. "Atland" is clearly a completely fictional place and there are no historians or scholars (unlike Atlantis) who argue otherwise. Academic credibility weeds out all the junk and nonsense, that is simply why I use it. If there are no academics (i. e. experts) who take "Atland" to be real then I think we can easily conclude it never existed. The consensus is Oera Linda Book was a forgery.

There were ancient trade routes connecting northern europe to southern europe, but that's all it was - trade. The Oera Linda Book in contrast describes Frisians as having founded all ancient civilizations in the Mediterranean and beyond. It is nothing but fantasy. You might as well claim Eskimos founded Minoan Crete.

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever.

Again words as nonsense, junk, consensus, forgery ...

It might be a supprise for some, but looking for the consensus is not really that difficult (and why should that be the ultimate goal), just google and put on the repeater.

Of course Atland should be linked with Atlantis, only for his name and context.

You can say the one is rubbish, the other you believe is real, but not linking them would be plain madness.

The consensus I made with myself is that your view is the easiest one, and repeated at nauseam but does not add value.

It does not leave open an honest examination of something that for sure has some literacy value.

You can't appreciate, ok that's clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you find a peer-reviewed work or scholarly source defending it?

Can you find a dito work or source proving it is a forgery?

Even if it would be a 19th century forgery, it would be an interesting study subject, if only for the language in which it was written.

Otherwise you would need to explain why no historian takes it serious.

Dr. Ottema took it seriously and his career was destroyed by malicious press.

A similar thing happened to Dr. Wirth (who was forbidden to publish or teach by the nazis).

The strong attacks they suffered can easily be explained, because some ideas in the OLB may feel like threats to the establishment, in particular centralised wealth and power (princes and priests in the english translation), as well as to common dogmas about language, history and religion.

These attacks are one explanation. So far, no established historian has dared to risk being excommunicated by being declared pseudohistorian (which is the common tactic of subsidized science).

My carreer (as Msc) was in the world of science, politics and mass media - I stepped out of that treadmill 10 years ago. I know from theory (history and philosophy of science) as well as personal experience that there are taboos, dogmas and lots of internal conflicts in science. So science is not like a religion to me, as it still seems to be to you.

It was not even written to be taken serious.

You claim to know who created it and why?

Edited by gestur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're only left with crazy conspiracy theories.

That is a term often misused by people who only believe what they learn at school and from mainstream media.

The prevailing OLB theory is by Dr. Jensma from the University of Groningen.

He did not investigate the authenticity, but started from the assumption that OLB is a hoax and tried to answer the question who might have created it.

At least three specialists (professors in dutch literature & language, church history and Oldfrisian/ Oldsaxon) publicly declared that they did not share his conclusions (see end of my 1 hour video).

His theory is that vicar-poet Haverschmidt, linguist Verwijs and shipwright Over de Linden created it together in deepest secret, while many witnesses who confirmed the authenticity simply lied.

Now that is a conspiracy theory, litterally.

Edited by gestur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the only 19th century philologist who studied the manuscript came to the conclusion it was a forgery... only to "save his career"?

Dr. Verwijs (1830-1880) was not the only one.

Dr. Ottema (1804-1879) studied and translated it (whilst Verwijs tried, but did not succeed).

He concluded it was authentic and argued why. As said he was crushed. Verwijs was at the start of his carreer and when public opinion turned against the OLB he changed his (public) opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also countless problems with chronology. The Frisians under "Minno" are described as having founded Minoan civilization post-2194/3 BC. Yet, the Minoan civilization was already flourishing 500 years before as established by archaeology.

http://en.wikipedia....an_civilization

Do "Oeralindists" accept there are hundreds (if not thousands) of errors in the Oera Linda Book? If so, how do you decide what is real?

It really says Minno and a small crew landed on Crete which was already inhabited. The OLB doesn't say Minno founded Minoan civilization, I don't even think this is alluded to in myth.

Minos appears in Greek literature as the king of Knossos as early as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.[13] Thucydides tells us Minos was the most ancient man known to build a navy.[14] He reigned over Crete and the islands of the Aegean Sea three generations before the Trojan War. He lived at Knossos for periods of nine years, where he received instruction from Zeus in the legislation which he gave to the island. He was the author of the Cretan constitution and the founder of its naval supremacy.

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

What he was supposedly to take to Crete was his Fryan laws and the OLB states he wasn't there all that long either, it doesn't say anything about him founding Minoan civilization. It actually tells us that Crete had priests, princes and a kingdom already.

When we had been settled there a short time, and they discovered that we had no slaves, they were very much astonished; and when I explained to them that we had laws which made everybody equal, they wished to have the same; but they had hardly established them before the whole land was in confusion.

The priests and the princes declared that we had excited their subjects to rebellion, and the people appealed to us for aid and protection. When the princes saw that they were about to lose their kingdom, they gave freedom to their people, and came to me to establish a code of laws. The people, however, got no freedom, and the princes remained masters, acting according to their own pleasure. When this storm had passed, they began to sow divisions among us. They told my people that I had invoked their assistance to make myself permanent king. Once I found poison in my food. So when a ship from Flyland sailed past, I quietly took my departure.

http://oeralinda.web...a-linda-book#12

Many of these errors you speak of only appear when you assume it is saying something it is not, as in the above example.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really says Minno and a small crew landed on Crete which was already inhabited.

Before Minno even arrives, Crete is described as having been already inhabited by Finda's colonists from the North Sea:

"When the princes saw that they were about to lose their kingdom, they gave freedom to their people, and came to me to establish a code of laws. The people, however, got no freedom, and the princes remained masters, acting according to their own pleasure. When this storm had passed, they began to sow divisions among us. They told my people that I had invoked their assistance to make myself permanent king. Once I found poison in my food. So when a ship from Flyland sailed past, I quietly took my departure. Leaving alone, then, my own adventures, I will conclude this history by saying that we must not have anything to do with Finda’s people, wherever it may be, because they are full of false tricks, fully as much to be feared as their sweet wine with deadly poison."

The Oera Linda Book deals with an impossible ethnogenesis. This is why the forger was either writing it as a parody, or as Nordicism.

The OLB doesn't say Minno founded Minoan civilization, I don't even think this is alluded to in myth.

Minos appears in Greek literature as the king of Knossos as early as Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.[13] Thucydides tells us Minos was the most ancient man known to build a navy.[14] He reigned over Crete and the islands of the Aegean Sea three generations before the Trojan War. He lived at Knossos for periods of nine years, where he received instruction from Zeus in the legislation which he gave to the island. He was the author of the Cretan constitution and the founder of its naval supremacy.

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

What he was supposedly to take to Crete was his Fryan laws and the OLB states he wasn't there all that long either, it doesn't say anything about him founding Minoan civilization.

There's more than one King Minos in Greek myth with several generations between them. The earliest Minos built the Knossos palace, but the palace was rebuilt several times. Therefore any dating of the first mythological king is hazardous. An earlier palace existed some three centuries before the "New Palace Period" (c. 1700 BC) and there was a proto-structure before. The dating by chroniclers three generations before the Trojan War doesn't work, which is why many considered there to be successional kings with the same name. The first king is quite literally the founder: he builds not only the palace but founds two cities according to Strabo, giving Cretans their laws. The Oera Linda Book describes "Minno" not only as a lawgiver but also having owned land there:

When I came away from Athenia with my followers, we arrived at an island named by my crew Kreta, because of the cries that the inhabitants raised on our arrival. When they really saw that we did not come to make war, they were quiet, so that at last I was able to buy a harbour in exchange for a boat and some iron implements, and a piece of land.

The etymology for Crete here is also more nonsense.

Many of these errors you speak of only appear when you assume it is saying something it is not, as in the above example.

Ok well good luck providing evidence that Minoans were colonists from the North Sea ("Finda's people") that were given their laws by later Frisians, who also bought a harbor and land on Crete. :tu: Are you actually being serious with this?

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Verwijs (1830-1880) was not the only one.

Dr. Ottema (1804-1879) studied and translated it (whilst Verwijs tried, but did not succeed).

He concluded it was authentic and argued why. As said he was crushed. Verwijs was at the start of his carreer and when public opinion turned against the OLB he changed his (public) opinion.

In case you haven't noticed it is 2014.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.

The older the idea, the more attractive it is to pseudoscience—it's the wisdom of the ancients!—especially if the idea is transparently wrong and has long been discarded by science. Many journalists have trouble in comprehending this point. A typical reporter writing about astrology may think a thorough job can be done by interviewing six astrologers and one astronomer. The astronomer says it's all bunk; the six astrologers say it's great stuff and really works and for $50 they'll be glad to cast anyone's horoscope. (No doubt!) To many reporters, and apparently to many editors and their readers, this would confirm astrology six to one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Ottema took it seriously and his career was destroyed by malicious press.

A similar thing happened to Dr. Wirth (who was forbidden to publish or teach by the nazis).

Wirth was kicked out of the Ahnenerbe, but the guy was an anti-semite, and Aryanist. You cannot find one credible scholar who considers the Oera Linda Book to be a non-forgery, instead your sources are discredited 19th or early 20th century Nordicists.

The strong attacks they suffered can easily be explained, because some ideas in the OLB may feel like threats to the establishment, in particular centralised wealth and power (princes and priests in the english translation), as well as to common dogmas about language, history and religion.

These attacks are one explanation. So far, no established historian has dared to risk being excommunicated by being declared pseudohistorian (which is the common tactic of subsidized science).

My carreer (as Msc) was in the world of science, politics and mass media - I stepped out of that treadmill 10 years ago. I know from theory (history and philosophy of science) as well as personal experience that there are taboos, dogmas and lots of internal conflicts in science. So science is not like a religion to me, as it still seems to be to you.

You have no evidence so you have to employ conspiracy theories, this is always the case for pseudo-history and pseudo-science.

The "OeraLindists" are in the same boat as creationists and other dogmatic "ists":

Scholars have difficulty debating opponents such as Afrocentrists, catastrophists, creationists or even anti-abortionists, because they expect their opponents to be civil and play by the rules of scholarly evidence. They mistakenly believe they have entered an arena where all sides are in quest of the same truth. What they are actually getting into is a street fight, where the goal is to defeat and humiliate your enemy. Their opponents don't follow traditional standards of evidence in their printed arguments and diatribes, so why expect them to be any different in a public debate? If you challenge their accuracy, they will question your integrity. If you ask for evidence, they will insult you. If you challenge their sources, you will be asked to prove the absolute certainty of your sources. You think the arena is an intellectual one where the combatants use wit and intelligence to score points, but while you are looking above your opponent's shoulders, he will kick you in the groin. You may have the evidence and the arguments on your side but your opponent doesn't care about the evidence and is not interested in your arguments. He already knows the truth. - Dr. Leftkowitz
You claim to know who created it and why?

The fact only Nazis took an interest in it and it became "Himmler's Bible" is more than a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok well good luck providing evidence that Minoans were colonists from the North Sea ("Finda's people") that were given their laws by later Frisians, who also bought a harbor and land on Crete. Are you actually being serious with this?

Another statement about Minos is that Sir Arthur Evans a British archaeologist gave the name "Minoan" to the Cretan civilization, from King Minos' name, (A.D. 1900). Even the name Minos, may not have been the king's real name (and is not Greek in origin) and could have been a hereditary title of Minoan rulers.

So actually, it's not that strange at all to think Minos as not from Greek origin.

I wonder, maybe Puzzler or Gestur know this. Does the OLB give a kind of etymology about Minos, like some other that sound rather crazy for most readers? I can't remember.

But anyway I'll give an example of what the hereditary title could have been.

The elevated one fe.

Minos_zps71c8014f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hatred found its way among them.

They each bore twelve sons and twelve daughters—

at every Juul-time a couple.

Thence come all mankind.

Lyda was black, with hair curled like a lamb's;

her eyes shone like stars,

and shot out glances like those of a bird of prey.

Finda was yellow, and her hair was like the mane of a horse.

She could not bend a tree,

but where Lyda killed one lion

she killed ten.

Frya was white like the snow at sunrise,

and the blue of her eyes

vied with the rainbow.

This is discredited 19th century race typology when the world was split into three races: "Mongoloids" (yellow), "Negroids" (black) and "Caucasoids" (white).

"Hatred" for "od" was a mistranslation, much discussed since first publication and in this thread.

Ottema related it to Latin "odium", but it makes more sense to relate it to nordic words like Norse "odd" (peak, point, phallic object) or German "odem" (gods breath, life force), as Over de Linden suggested.

Since you probably never had a look at the original language, here is a simplified transcription with improvised translation of the first part:

[006/29]

WR.ALDA.S OD TRAD TO RA BINNA.

AND NW BARDON EK TWILIF SVNA AND TWILIF TOGETHERA.

EK JOL.TID TWÉN.

THÉROF SEND ALLE MANNESKA KÉMEN.

Wralda´s <od> entered them,

and now each gave birth to twelve sons and twelve daughters,

each Yuletime twins.

Thereof all people have come.

[007/01]

LYDA WAS SWART. KROL.HÉRED ALSA THA LOMERA.

LIK. STARA BLONKON HJRA OGON.

JA THES GIRFUGELS BLIKKAR WÉRON VNMODICH BY HJRA.S.

[007/30]

FINDA. WAS GÉL AND HJR HÉR SA THA MANNA ÉNER HORS.

ÉNE THRÉ NE KV HJA NAVT NI BUGJA.

MEN HWÉR LYDA ANNEN LAVWA MACHT TO DÉJANDE

THÉR DADE HJA. WEL TJAN.

[009/18]

FRYA WAS WIT LIK SNÉI BY.T MORNE.RAD

AND THAT BLAW HJRAR OGNUM.

WN.ET JETA THÉRE RÉINBOGE OF.

That the idea of three root races was popular (again?) in the 19th century, and that this concept got discredited later, are no good arguments against OLB´s authenticity.

The following fragment demonstrates a vision of peaceful co-existence and co-operation between the races:

[141/04]

FINDA.S FOLK SKIL SINA FINDINGRIKHÉD TO MÉMA NITHA WENDA.

THAT LYDA.S FOLK SINA KRAFTA AND WI VSA WISDOM.

THA SKILUN THA FALXA PRESTERA WÉI FAGATH WERTHA FON JRTHA.

[...] THÉR NE SKILUN NÉNE ORA MASTERA NACH FORSTA NER BASA NAVT NÉSA

AS THÉRA THÉR BI MÉNA WILLE KÉREN SEND.

Translation Sandbach (p.191):

Finda's folk shall contribute their industry to the common good,

Linda's folk their strength, and we our wisdom.

Then the false priests shall be swept away from the earth.

[...] There shall be neither princes, nor masters, nor rulers,

except those chosen by the general voice.

Edited by gestur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Translation Sandbach (p.191):

Linda's folk their strength, and we our wisdom.

That should, ofcourse, have been Lyda´s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the OLB give a kind of etymology about Minos...

In OLB the name is "MINNO".

The etymology is not given explicitly, but "MIN" means "my" or "mine" (dutch: mijn - german: mein - scandinavian languages: min).

The dutch verb "minnen" or "beminnen" means to love or to make love.

Would make sense to use this root-word for a name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In OLB the name is "MINNO".

The etymology is not given explicitly, but "MIN" means "my" or "mine" (dutch: mijn - german: mein - scandinavian languages: min).

The dutch verb "minnen" or "beminnen" means to love or to make love.

Would make sense to use this root-word for a name.

I'd probably go 'minn' for 'less' = small, mini - small child or baby or fish/minnow or even youngest in family - usage such as Junior, squirt

minn 13, mi-n-n, mi-n, afries., Adv.: nhd. minder, weniger; ne. less

seemingly also related to 'minder' but I'd be inclined to go for 'less' as it seems a common usage for a young or small son, the lesser (of his father).

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 11

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.