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

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

Maybe you could point out where it says or implies that it's inhabited by Finda's colonists from the North Sea...

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:

I don't think any of that equates to the OLB saying that he founded Minoan civilization, even if it does I don't really see a problem with it datewise. There was already established princes - they wanted his laws to make themselves more powerful, yes Finda's people, but they are not necessarily from the North Sea.

The etymology for Crete here is also more nonsense.

Cretan is the name in Mycenaean Greek, Linear B is 1450BC, long after Minno had been there, it doesn't matter how they write it, by the time it gets back to Greek, the word is still Crete (home of the Cretan) - the etymology should be unchanged all through and based in IE language - you have 'greet'.

The current name of Crete first appears in Mycenaean Greek as ke-re-si-jo "Cretan" in Linear B texts. In Ancient Greek, the name Crete (Κρήτη) first appears in Homer's Odyssey.[4] Its etymology is unknown. One speculative proposal derives it from a hypothetical Luvian word *kursatta (cf. kursawar "island", kursattar "cutting, sliver").[5] In Latin, it became Creta.

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

gretan "to come in contact with" (in sense of "attack, accost" as well as "salute, welcome," and "touch, take hold of, handle"), from West Germanic *grotjan (cf. Old Saxon grotian, Old Frisian greta, Dutch groeten, Old High German gruozen, German grüßen "to salute, greet"), perhaps originally "to resound" (via notion of "cause to speak"), causative of Proto-Germanic *grætanan, root of Old English grætan (Anglian gretan) "weep, bewail," from PIE *gher- "to call out." Greet still can mean "cry, weep" in Scottish & northern England dialect, though this might be from a different root. Grætan is probably also the source of the second element in regret

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=greet

From from PIE *gher- "to call out." - gives open way for the Mycenaean ke-re

What do you think it is or are you going for the 'speculative proposal' of the 'hypothetical Luvian word'?

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?

Absolutely, we've had this thread going for about 4 years, maybe longer, this is the 2nd part as the1st part got too long, the mods created a new thread, it's mostly just the same handful of us, that's how serious we all take it here. I wish Abe was here though, he'd love your input, shame, he's probably somewhere having a bad day.....

Edited by The Puzzler
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... which is why Oera Linda Book [...] was used as propaganda by the Nazis.

On the contrary, they publicly declared it fake as early as 1934:

Fragment of "Het Oera-Linda-Boek in Duitschland en hier" (The OLB in Germany and here), by Dr. Murk de Jong (1939), about the way Herman Wirth was silenced by Nazi-'scientists'.

[...]

Translation:

With a (shortened) translation he had made it accessible for the German people. It was a smasher. Teachers took it to school to read it to the youth, like Wirth did for his students at university. An Oera-Linda-cult impended, with Wirth as its prophet.

But also a crisis in German science. [...]

In feverish fuss all was done to crush Wirth or the OLB, that was virtually the same. [...]

Finally on the 4th of May 1934, it took a great demonstration of German scientists, to silence Wirth for the time being. A demonstartion (show) it was, more than a scientific debate [...]

That it became known as "Himmler´s Bible" after the war, has surely helped to discredit it some more.

But it is true that Himmler personally took the book seriously and had secret investigations done till ca. 1943.

Hitler liked Wagner´s music. Does this mean it should be banned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No scholar or historian considers the Oera Linda Book to be a non-forgery.

That is because too few of them know of its existence and even less take the effort to investigate it themselves, let alone publish about it.

No scholar or historian has disproven its authenticity, that's why I asked:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet no civilization in their ancient Germanic homeland ever appeared, funny that.

I guess you consider as 'civilization' only cultures that built and left big temples and palaces and conquered lots of land and peoples.

Well, that was indeed the opposite of what the (matriarchal) Frya's (or proto-Frisians) were about, according to the OLB.

And there used to be plenty of oakwood here in the fertile and strategic riverdelta of Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's being read is a written copy of a said old manuscript.

The last entry says he had to copy it - this allows for changes that may impact the original events if written differently.

It allows the use of contemporary writing to the last person who copied it.

By the time something is copied numerous times, more changes occur from the original, in effect, making the original seem impossible.

You could use that same theoretic approach with the dialogues of Atlantis - how the original story by Solon has been distorted so much by the time Critias repeats it, that it appears the whole thing is impossible.

Outside influences, cultural, legendary, mythical, opinions - make their way in, all in turn 'diluting' the original.

What I like to do, is dissect the given stories and see what strands may actually be truth, then see if it can align in some manner with given story, leniency should be given in descriptions of creationism and timelines and a few other factors....this story is particularly complex in terms of when each 'chapter' was written and in what order it all should be, the language used and interpretation of the actual language used and how this affects the story. That's one of the biggest things I've noticed.

I doubt any of us here actually take the OLB absolute literally but rather investigate some of the possibilities of said events, which often, after a lot of scrutiny, do not seem to be all that fanciful.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you could point out where it says or implies that it's inhabited by Finda's colonists from the North Sea...

I don't think any of that equates to the OLB saying that he founded Minoan civilization, even if it does I don't really see a problem with it datewise. There was already established princes - they wanted his laws to make themselves more powerful, yes Finda's people, but they are not necessarily from the North Sea.

Cretan is the name in Mycenaean Greek, Linear B is 1450BC, long after Minno had been there, it doesn't matter how they write it, by the time it gets back to Greek, the word is still Crete (home of the Cretan) - the etymology should be unchanged all through and based in IE language - you have 'greet'.

The current name of Crete first appears in Mycenaean Greek as ke-re-si-jo "Cretan" in Linear B texts. In Ancient Greek, the name Crete (Κρήτη) first appears in Homer's Odyssey.[4] Its etymology is unknown. One speculative proposal derives it from a hypothetical Luvian word *kursatta (cf. kursawar "island", kursattar "cutting, sliver").[5] In Latin, it became Creta.

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

The funny thing is that 2 other Dutch words for 'kreten' (yell) are

- krijsen (-> keresijo)

- krijten (with krijt also as an alternative meaning of chalk)

KRIJTI

Woordsoort: znw.(o.)

Modern lemma: krijt

znw. onz., mv. -en. Mnl. crijt; verwant is ohd. mhd. kreiz, nhd. kreis. De wortel van Krijt is wellicht niet alleen gelijkluidend maar zelfs identiek met dien van Krijten

http://www.wnt.inl.n...=WNT&id=M035530

krijten (luid roepen)

http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/krijten

As another alternative explanation for Crete is coming from Terra Creta (Chalk Land), you still find the link between Kreten (Yell, OLB) and Terra Creta in the word 'Krijt' or 'Kreet'. Maybe OLB is also just a lesson in etymology in funny disguise :-)

Edited by Van Gorp
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have followed this thread since the first post,and from my view this is exemplar of what threads should be .The members that have been involved have provided a vast amount of knowledge both through links and their personal pet areas of interests,coupled with a unique blend of exchanges.Thanks

jmccr8

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See how gestur has to invoke those conspiracy theories...

1690405_589823377761749_1418585501_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you are into it at the moment VG , but i just can't believe Fomenko's dating myself i am afraid , but aside from that there is a lot of good history in his books,and a lot of good source notes.

Back to Chronicles of Eri again , and dont forget i am using one book accused of being a forgery to back up another accused of being a forgery , so not on very stable ground here .

but the word nomads according to o'connor came from the Noe-maid-eis (nomads), or as we call him Noah , OK so Noahs flood (sie = sea/flood eis=host or horde ) was Nimrods Horde/ army from Assyria , that invaded Mesopotamia , the people there were Scythians, lots got killed , lots got enslaved , and lots fled he says first to Ardmenia (Armenia )later to greece, pelloponese.

re the mongols and the Rus or Russians the gist of it seems to be ,at first the mongols were nomadic shepherds , they did not believe anyone should own the land,and did not want anyone building towns , or villages on it ,and possibly staking a claim to their traditional cyclic grazing rights....... ( herd is probably a version of horde ) every now and again they burst out of their nomadic lands , and destroyed any towns and villages they came across ,restoring the land to pasture , pillaging as they went , then they went home to continue their nomadic lifestyle , but the Rus were helping them , the difference being when the mongols went back home , the Rus stepped into the lands that the mongols devastated , and made them their own.

do i remember a bit in OLB , where they say that their task is to take over the lands and re-populate them , where war has made them barren.......sure i remember reading that somewhere in OLB. ???

Yes found it .........Appolonia's book.......p.154/155..........The earth and the sea were made for Frya's people , all our rivers run down to the sea, the Lyda's people , and the Finda's people will exterminate each other , and we must people the empty countries - In movement and in sailing is our prosperity .

could they have originally been Phoenicians.......Chronicles of Eri (Ireland) says their history comes from the chronicles of Gaalag

which was written in phoenician characters , in the Greek language ??

Edited by NO-ID-EA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have followed this thread since the first post,and from my view this is exemplar of what threads should be .The members that have been involved have provided a vast amount of knowledge both through links and their personal pet areas of interests,coupled with a unique blend of exchanges.Thanks

jmccr8

Nice words jmccr8, i can agree. I also like that kind of informationblending of the different contributors here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's being read is a written copy of a said old manuscript.

The last entry says he had to copy it - this allows for changes that may impact the original events if written differently.

It allows the use of contemporary writing to the last person who copied it.

By the time something is copied numerous times, more changes occur from the original, in effect, making the original seem impossible.

You could use that same theoretic approach with the dialogues of Atlantis - how the original story by Solon has been distorted so much by the time Critias repeats it, that it appears the whole thing is impossible.

Outside influences, cultural, legendary, mythical, opinions - make their way in, all in turn 'diluting' the original.

What I like to do, is dissect the given stories and see what strands may actually be truth, then see if it can align in some manner with given story, leniency should be given in descriptions of creationism and timelines and a few other factors....this story is particularly complex in terms of when each 'chapter' was written and in what order it all should be, the language used and interpretation of the actual language used and how this affects the story. That's one of the biggest things I've noticed.

I doubt any of us here actually take the OLB absolute literally but rather investigate some of the possibilities of said events, which often, after a lot of scrutiny, do not seem to be all that fanciful.

Solon recorded the Atlantis myth and his manuscript was passed down unaltered to Dropides descendants. The Atlantis myth from Solon to Critias was never added too or distorted. The fabulous and improbable descriptions in the Atlantis story had earlier entered between the (original) Greek transmission of the mythos to the Egyptians (we are told the Greeks "forgot" their pre-Deucalionid history and through Solon they are reminded). The Oera Linda Book in contrast is a literary hoax and the earliest appearance of any of its characters or non-historic places (e.g. "Atland") are from the 19th century. While there is a kernal of truth in the Atlantis myth, there is none in the Oera Linda Book. Unlike Atlantis, Atland never existed - it was invented as fiction.

Compare fictional islands to mythological.

http://en.wikipedia....ictional_island

http://en.wikipedia....ological_places

Atland = fiction. Atlantis = mythological. These are two different things. Compare the lists above.

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, someone might say that even if Oera Linda Book/Atland is a forgery then it might still have borrowed some real oral traditions. Problem with this is nothing found in the Oera Linda Book is found in Frisian folklore or anything. Nothing here can be salvaged, can you folks not admit this? :blink: The Oera Linda Book isn't even good for toilet paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Oera Linda Book isn't even good for toilet paper.

Then why are you here, mr. Smith?

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll (Internet)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chronicles of Eri is another forgery.

http://en.wikipedia....ronicles_of_Eri

No!.....Chronicles of Eri is another book that has been claimed to be a forgery, not "proved" to be a forgery ........The wiki you provided gives the name of just one man the "archaeologist R.A.Macalister who reviewed O'Connors work in 1941 , calling it a clear fraud , and it's contents "cloud Cuckoo" and comparing it to the book of Mormon.

Now if you look up Macalister from the link on the same wiki you will find " Macalister was an Irish Archaeologist who was responsible for excavations at Gezer , Palestine - his work is considered a failure , due to both poor quality of excavation technique , and also shoddy record keeping , he therefore left the field of Palestinian Archaeology , and accepted a position in Celtic Archaeology at Dublin ".........So clearly not the best authority to review O'Connors work.

Edited by NO-ID-EA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why are you here, mr. Smith?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll (Internet)

I already refuted your points. Your only response was you reject academia and scholarship, and there is a conspiracy theory to conceal the truth about the Oera Linda Book. How can someone continue in debating you? I asked for a single historian who considers Oera Linda Book to be genuine, you failed to provide a single one and could only cite a Nazi crank (Herman Wirth) and a 200 year old philologist who during his later career admitted it was a forgery. I'm the troll? lol. Dude, its obvious you aren't even serious about the Oera Linda Book. You make no effort to even defend it with genuine research, sources or arguments.

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already refuted your points. Your only response was you reject academia and scholarship, and there is a conspiracy theory to conceal the truth about the Oera Linda Book. How can someone continue in debating you? I asked for a single historian who considers Oera Linda Book to be genuine, you failed to provide a single one and could only cite a Nazi crank (Herman Wirth) and a 200 year old philologist who during his later career admitted it was a forgery. I'm the troll? lol. Dude, its obvious you aren't even serious about the Oera Linda Book. You make no effort to even defend it with genuine research, sources or arguments.

For the record, I find you a polite, intelligent, challenging debater and certainly no troll.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No!.....Chronicles of Eri is another book that has been claimed to be a forgery, not "proved" to be a forgery ........The wiki you provided gives the name of just one man the "archaeologist R.A.Macalister who reviewed O'Connors work in 1941 , calling it a clear fraud , and it's contents "cloud Cuckoo" and comparing it to the book of Mormon.

Now if you look up Macalister from the link on the same wiki you will find " Macalister was an Irish Archaeologist who was responsible for excavations at Gezer , Palestine - his work is considered a failure , due to both poor quality of excavation technique , and also shoddy record keeping , he therefore left the field of Palestinian Archaeology , and accepted a position in Celtic Archaeology at Dublin ".........So clearly not the best authority to review O'Connors work.

It's blatant pseudo-history like the Oera Linda Book. Just look at its contents: Phoenician language is Scythian (?), the Irish came from Mesopotamia etc.

Like how if you google Oera Linda Book you only find neo-Nazi websites in support of it, the Chronicles of Eri only appears on British Israelite sites - this is more than a clue.

Let me remind you about pseudo-history again:

is on a mission, not a quest, seeking to support some contemporary political or religious agenda rather than find out the truth,
often maintains there is a conspiracy theory suppress its claims

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

Edited by OliverDSmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I find you a polite, intelligent, challenging debater and certainly no troll.

I've had a look at the old thread and through this one. People who debate Gestur or the other dogmatic "Oera Lindists" (actually he's the only one - it makes him feel special) leave after a short while, and i've wasted enough time here. This brings me back to the quote I earlier put up from a classicist:

Hence, it is nearly futile to engage them in debate. 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.

What Gestur displays is basically a form of true-believer syndrome. It is actually interesting that he brings up "what is your purpose here", well what is his? He's made up his mind from day one and will never change his views on the subject (rejecting any criticism of the Oera Linda Book as part of a conspiracy theory).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's blatant pseudo-history like the Oera Linda Book. Just look at its contents: Phoenician language is Scythian (?), the Irish came from Mesopotamia etc.

Like how if you google Oera Linda Book you only find neo-Nazi websites in support of it, the Chronicles of Eri only appears on British Israelite sites - this is more than a clue.

Let me remind you about pseudo-history again:

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

If someone seems on a mission it seems more likely to be you yourself.

Like Mario Dantes also expressed, it seems you are mainly here and there to tackle 'competitive' views concerning possible historical base for Atlantis-like tales not in line with your own.

Also you seem pretty sure of yourself and views, no problem with that, but for me you are a bit fast in scoffing things away as nonsense and not really polite and open communication in my eyes.

Despite you saying it, I didn't see any real refutations only claims and asking for some authority to back up why OLB should be worth considering.

For instance in one of the former posts, Phoenicians declared to be related with a Scythian origin, why not?

Phoenices_zps3b1723a3.png

Centuries ago the thought was allready there.

But you as young Turk are so sure it all is bull.

Ok, noted but not convinced of your overall insight and wellwilling open investigations anymore, it's a shame.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, someone might say that even if Oera Linda Book/Atland is a forgery then it might still have borrowed some real oral traditions. Problem with this is nothing found in the Oera Linda Book is found in Frisian folklore or anything. Nothing here can be salvaged, can you folks not admit this? :blink: The Oera Linda Book isn't even good for toilet paper.

Friso is in Frisian folklore. The same flood date appears in the Frisian Almanak. Several references can be found but overall, not an awful lot.

In fact, apart from ancient tales embedded in the 13th century Dutch folk songs, and some evidence of Celtic and Germanic mythology in the naming of days of the week and landmarks (see for example the 2nd century inscription to goddess Vagdavercustis), the folk tales of the ancient Dutch people were not written down in the first written literature of the 12th century, and thus lost to us.

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

Even Dutch folklore is relatively recent and lost to us, let alone Frisian.

Also to consider is that these people who would have been for the most part Frisians of the OLB, had all but disappeared by Roman times.

Final demise of the ancient Frisii

The emperor Constantius Chlorus had campaigned successfully against several Germanic peoples during the internecine civil wars that had brought him to sole power over the Roman Empire. Among them were the Frisii and Chamavi, who were described in the Panegyrici Latini (Manuscript VIII) as being forced to resettle within Roman territory as laeti (i.e., Roman-era serfs) in c. 296.[5] This is the last reference to the ancient Frisii in the historical record. However they would appear once more, this time in the archaeological record. The discovery of a type of earthenware unique to 4th century Frisia, called terp Tritzum, shows that an unknown number of them were resettled in Flanders and Kent,[6] likely as laeti under the aforementioned Roman coercion.

If there were any Frisii left in Frisia, they would fall victim to the whims of nature. After several hundred years of favorable conditions, the environment in all of the low-lying coastal regions of northwestern Europe began to deteriorate c. 250 AD and gradually worsened over the next 200 years. Tectonic subsidence, a rising water table and storm surges combined to flood some areas. The situation was aggravated by a shift to a cooler, wetter climate in the region.[25][26][27][28]

In the 3rd and 4th centuries the population of Frisia steadily decreased, and by the 5th century the population had dropped dramatically. The coastal lands would remain largely unpopulated for the next two centuries. When conditions improved Frisia would receive an influx of new settlers, mostly Saxons, and these would eventually be referred to as 'Frisians', though they were not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii. It is these 'new Frisians' who are largely the ancestors of the medieval and modern Frisians

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

Who then, carries on their knowledge of history? The Romans? The Christians? The Franks? The new settlers, Saxons, who didn't share the same history..?

Is it any wonder nothing is recalled as their history in folklore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a look at the old thread and through this one. People who debate Gestur or the other dogmatic "Oera Lindists" (actually he's the only one - it makes him feel special) leave after a short while, and i've wasted enough time here. This brings me back to the quote I earlier put up from a classicist:

[/color]

What Gestur displays is basically a form of true-believer syndrome. It is actually interesting that he brings up "what is your purpose here", well what is his? He's made up his mind from day one and will never change his views on the subject (rejecting any criticism of the Oera Linda Book as part of a conspiracy theory).

Well, I'm not really into personal attacks, I'd rather debate the subject, maybe I spoke too soon...

Conspiracy theory is a way over-rated term imo, nevertheless it's certainly possible that sensitive information was and is, covered up or disposed of.

Egeria was King Numa's guide...

In this myth she is shown as counselor and guide to King Numa in the establishment of the original framework of laws and rituals of Rome, and in this role she is somehow uniquely in Roman mythology associated with "sacred books"; Numa (Latin "numen" designates "the expressed will of a deity"[4]) is reputed to have written down the teachings of Egeria in "sacred books" that he had buried with him; when some chance accident brought them back to light some 500 years later, they were deemed by the Senate inappropriate for disclosure to the people and destroyed by their order;[5] what made them inappropriate was certainly of religious nature with "political" bearing but apparently has not been handed down by Valerius Antias, the source that Plutarch was using.Dionysius of Halicarnassus hints that they were actually kept as a very close secret by the Pontifices.

http://en.wikipedia....eria_(mythology)

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's blatant pseudo-history like the Oera Linda Book. Just look at its contents: Phoenician language is Scythian (?), the Irish came from Mesopotamia etc.

Like how if you google Oera Linda Book you only find neo-Nazi websites in support of it, the Chronicles of Eri only appears on British Israelite sites - this is more than a clue.

Let me remind you about pseudo-history again:

No thanks once is enough for me to understand your opinion....................You will need to blame me for Chronicles of Eri ...i am the only one who has been quoting it over the last couple of pages....not the other folks..., I don't agree with the title Pseudo , it is still an interesting topic for debate.which has not been proven false.....it also does not say that the Phoenician language is Scythian..but that the Chronicles of Gaalag used Phoenician letters in the Scythian language.

Edited by NO-ID-EA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes found it .........Appolonia's book.......p.154/155..........The earth and the sea were made for Frya's people , all our rivers run down to the sea, the Lyda's people , and the Finda's people will exterminate each other , and we must people the empty countries - In movement and in sailing is our prosperity .

could they have originally been Phoenicians.......Chronicles of Eri (Ireland) says their history comes from the chronicles of Gaalag

which was written in phoenician characters , in the Greek language ??

Hi ID, yes the dispersion of people and finding new places to stay is an interesting topic. Thnx for looking into it.

You remember that 101 years after Atland sunk, the Slaves and Magyars were forced by the wild shepperds who took their land to settle in a tiny habitated place in the north?

Somewhere you have the parallel of story where in the 5th generation after Noah, in time of Phaleg (humor: Paal-Leg, the placing of the Palen :-), and 101 years after the flood people began to seperate and populate different territories.

And then you have this story where the Fryans find it their duty to find and cultivate newer area's, maybe just because people of different kind started to fight between each other?

Below an extract (Dutch, sorry maybe I can translate later when necessary) where is stated that Noah asked his people to look for new land where they could prosper and multiply, but also asked them to confirm not to take other people's land or fight for it, and satisfy with the piece that was at hand when they found it. As such happened since 101 years after the flood.

This (101 years after the flood) was the first division of people: quite orderly, by the benediction of 'God'.

The second (recounts the author) was less civilised and occured as the one after the Babylonic confusion, as a result of the haughty/arrogant nature of men that started to creep in.

DelingderVolkeren_zps7ae02d5d.png

See where OLB recounts that at firts the Magyars (101 years after flood) just stayed at their location without intruding fryas country.

Thereafter they did came in by force -> analogue the Babylonic confusion and fights that came along.

Just to mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone seems on a mission it seems more likely to be you yourself.

Like Mario Dantes also expressed, it seems you are mainly here and there to tackle 'competitive' views concerning possible historical base for Atlantis-like tales not in line with your own.

Also you seem pretty sure of yourself and views, no problem with that, but for me you are a bit fast in scoffing things away as nonsense and not really polite and open communication in my eyes.

Despite you saying it, I didn't see any real refutations only claims and asking for some authority to back up why OLB should be worth considering.

For instance in one of the former posts, Phoenicians declared to be related with a Scythian origin, why not?

Phoenices_zps3b1723a3.png

Centuries ago the thought was allready there.

But you as young Turk are so sure it all is bull.

Ok, noted but not convinced of your overall insight and wellwilling open investigations anymore, it's a shame.

Then find a scholar or historian who takes those claims serious. You folks never can, that's why you're left with conspiracy theories. As I already posted a while back - academic or scientific consensus (call it whatever you like, the historical method is science after all) weeds out all the junk and pseudo-history. If you think you are onto something provide a peer-reviewed paper, or quote a legitimate source or authority to backup your claims. Otherwise what is the point? I think you were misled that my Atlantis research tolerates "open investigation" for anything. No. Only for what is credible. Mario Dantas is a lunatic who thinks Greenland is a remnant of Atlantis that was destroyed by a comet or something as laughable. Why does this need to be investigated? It is false from the start.

Here's what Sprague de Camp wrote about people like Mario Dantas and Gestur in his book Lost Continents - "Arguing with them is rather like wrestling with the giant jellyfish Cyanea; the substance is too soft and slippery to grasp, and there is not even a brain to stun".

Edited by OliverDSmith

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.