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

Do you really need to ask...? lol

:whistle::rolleyes:

Edited by SSilhouette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you doubt?

Lack of any Iron- Bronze Age Burchts as described in the OLB

The date of the Flood just so happening to co-incide with the date of the Flood given in Frisian Almanacs

Coincidences in OLB Geography and local Frisian, Dutch and Northern Germangeography

No other incidence of OLB script

It's Nehalennia to Nyhalenia

No big, massive disasters around 2194 BC- only parts of gradual changes, no volcanos or shifting of landmasses.

No area that seems approapriate for 'Atland' to be in

Language (Bedrvm, lol)

Lack of any flood found at the date cited in the beggining (Okke, Min Svn)

Edited by flashman7870

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and Gents,

I need some assistance concerning a timeline I am constructing on mentionned dates in OLB.

Your opinion please :

when exactly did Jesus = Fo = Buda = Krisen lived in Kashmir following OLB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

400 BC, but I may be remembering it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and Gents,

I need some assistance concerning a timeline I am constructing on mentionned dates in OLB.

Your opinion please :

when exactly did Jesus = Fo = Buda = Krisen lived in Kashmir following OLB?

Good question and we battled this one out. My opinion is the translation says AND AT THAT TIME meaning when Atland sank that is 2194/3BC. Abe and some others interpret it as around 600BC,(593BC) when it was apparently written.

Sixteen hundred years ago (she writes, 593 B.C.), Atland was submerged; and at that time something happened which nobody had reckoned upon. In the heart of Findasland, upon a mountain, lies a plain called Kasamyr (Cashmere) that is “extraordinary.” There was a child born whose mother was the daughter of a king, and whose father was a high-priest. In order to hide the shame they were obliged to renounce their own blood.

16 wâra 100 jêr lêden is Atland svnken, aend to thêra tidum bêrade thêr awat hwêr vppa nimman rêkned nêde. In-t hirte fon Findas lând vppet berchta lêid en del, thêr is kêthen Kasamyr, thet is sjeldsum. Thêr werth en bern ebern, sin maem wêre thju toghater enis kêning aend sin tât wêre-n hâvedprester. Vmb skôm to vnkvma mosten hja hjara aejen blod vnkvma.

I believe these priests who harassed Jes-us as that child was named, are the same ones who came into Fryan lands. 600BC is oft quoted for Buddha, however the text imo clearly states this child was born when Atland sank.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when exactly did Jesus = Fo = Buda = Krisen lived in Kashmir following OLB?

On 16 june 2011, I wrote:

Most historiographic stories in the OLB start with their dating:

p.1 "30 years after the Folkmother was killed..."

p.6 "it was 7 x 7 years after Fàsta was appointed..."

p.47 "before the bad times came..."

p.50 "101 years after Aldland had sank..."

p.62 "563 years after Aldland had sank..."

p.68 "10 years after Jon was brought away..."

p.72 "when Hellenja or Minerva had died..."

p.75 "in the year 1005 after Aldland sank this was written..."

p.79 "... 1602 years after Aldland perished"

p.119 "two years after Gosa became Mother..."

p.120 "after we had been 12 x 100 and 2 x 12 years at the Five Waters..."

p.130 "in the times that our land sank down"

And once at the end:

p.117 "that happened 1888 years after Atland had sank"

If the Jes-us story really happened "when Atland was submerged", the author could have easily started the story with "In the time that Atland was submerged...", but she starts with "1600 years ago...", and you [Puzzler] suggest that she did this to mention when she wrote the story down.

This does not make sense.

She aims at dating the time when Jes-us lived and the point of reference is "when Atland sank", not when she wrote it, because we (the readers from the future) don't know when she wrote it.

From the context it is clear (and all translators agree about this) that the phrase should be read as:

"It was 1600 years after Atland had sank, and at that time..." etcetera

... so my answer is ca. 600 BCE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lack of any Iron- Bronze Age Burchts as described in the OLB

There will be many old sources about buildings or cities that no longer exist, or of which no traces have been found (yet).

The date of the Flood just so happening to co-incide with the date of the Flood given in Frisian Almanacs

Those Frisian Almanacs may have had the manuscript or a related document as their source.

Coincidences in OLB Geography and local Frisian, Dutch and Northern Germangeography

Peoples who move around often take their toponyms with them. Many examples in the US, South Africa and Australia. Most well known "New Amsterdam", later renamed "New York".

No other incidence of OLB script

There are more authentic ancient sources in a (thus far) unique script.

It's Nehalennia to Nyhalenia

Spelling variety in old sources is most common.

No big, massive disasters around 2194 BC- only parts of gradual changes, no volcanos or shifting of landmasses.

I am not a geologist, but Alewyn Raubenheimer is and he would strongly disagree with you. Have you read his book (3rd edition)?

No area that seems approapriate for 'Atland' to be in

Atland, according to the OLB means "old land". This can refer to any lost land. It is obvious that much land (coastal areas, islands) got lost as a result of natural disasters. OLB's Aldland does not have to refer to the same location as Plato's Atlantis.

Language (Bedrvm, lol)

Would you agree that the verb BEDA and the noun RVM might be 2000+ years old?

If so, why could a combination of these words not be that old.

If not, why not?

Lack of any flood found at the date cited in the beggining (Okke, Min Svn)

It is possible that this flood was not recorded or that Okke's father was refering to a metaphorical flood (invasion).

Some questions for you:

When do you suppose the manuscript was created and with what motive?

Why has (recent) years of paper research not resulted in a clear answer as to how old the paper is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 16 june 2011, I wrote:

... so my answer is ca. 600 BCE.

But the translation and original text says:

16 wâra 100 jêr lêden is Atland svnken, aend to thêra tidum

It does not say:

"It was 1600 years after Atland

That is invented, you or whoever are inventing that to suit what you think it SHOULD say, it does not say that.

Think more on it please O.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does not say:

"It was 1600 years after Atland

The best translation is not always the most literal one.

Your interpretaion just does not make sense, because alover the OLB, the point of reference is the sinking of Aldland.

If the Jes-us story happened around that time, it would have been in 'year zero', when Aldland sank.

If the author had meant that it happend 1600 years ago (the year of writing the text being the point of reference), we would have to know in what year it was written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best translation is not always the most literal one.

Your interpretaion just does not make sense, because alover the OLB, the point of reference is the sinking of Aldland.

If the Jes-us story happened around that time, it would have been in 'year zero', when Aldland sank.

If the author had meant that it happend 1600 years ago (the year of writing the text being the point of reference), we would have to know in what year it was written.

It makes perfect sense.

1600 years ago Atland sank and at that time (2194BC).... The writer knows when they wrote it - the reader doesn't know. We only know because of Hidde's letter.

The writer imo is relating something that happened when Atland sank.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comments on a fragment from "De Gemaskerde God" (2004) by Goffe Jensma (PhD thesis about the Oera Linda Book).

Another fragment, p.121:

"How is it even possible, that the Oera Linda-book was never recognised as the religious allegory that I desribed in the previous chapters? A primal cause seems to be the complex procedure that is followed in the book. Very much is asked of the reader, perhaps too much. He must constantly keep dispelling illusions and it takes effort and perseverance to finally discover the modernist message behind the historical nonsense."

Original Dutch text:

"Hoe kan het, dat het Oera Linda-boek eigenlijk nooit is gelezen als de religieuze allegorie die ik er in de vorige hoofdstuken in zag? Een eerste oorzaak lijkt het ingewikkelde procédé dat in het boek is gevolgd. Er wordt van de lezer zeer veel gevraagd, te veel misschien. Hij moet voortdurend illusies blijven doorprikken en het vergt inspanning en volharding om uiteindelijk achter de historische kolder de modernistische boodschap te ontwarren."

If it were not the symptom of a selfdestructive, collective mental illness, it would almost be funny that Jensma does not see that it is rather the other way around:

That he (and his fellow pseudo-skeptics) must constantly keep creating illusions in order to avoid the conclusion that the manuscript might be authentic after all.

His alleged 'historical nonsense' is the result of his own very liberal and questionable interpretations, for example that GÉRT.PIRE.HIS TOGHATER would refer to the medieval daughter of Great Pier Donia and that JES.US (a.k.a. BUDA) refers to Jesus of Nazereth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We only know because of Hidde's letter.

Please show us how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is possible that this flood [...] was refering to a metaphorical flood (invasion).

Please reconsider:

Interesting footnote in the Chronicles of Eri, book 2/2 (p.50):

"It is observable that the figure generally presented for an hostile invasion is a flood, as you may have seen in divers passages in these Chronicles, and in the Dissertation. Which instances could be given five hundred fold, was it necessary."

Fragment to which the footnote referred (p.48):

"What if a messenger be sent to Daire, to drive back the waves that threaten the land?"

Edited by Othar Winis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please show us how.

Hidde has told us the year he is in and the time from the sinking of Aldland, that's how we know Aldland sank in 2193/4BC.

Only readers after Hidde can work out the year Aldland sank. The writers knew when it sank, cause many referred to it. No text fragment indicates a year to backcount from except Hidde's.

When the part about Jes-us is written, she says 1600 years ago Aldland was sunken - so she writes 1600 years after 2193BC, which places her time of writing at 593BC, but we only know this from reading Hidde's letter.

As I said the Angelfire site inserts this: Sixteen hundred years ago (she writes, 593 B.C.), Atland was submerged; and at that time something happened which nobody had reckoned upon.

Or did you mean for me to explain something else? I wasn't quite sure...

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is unrelated, but currently I'm reading through the old thread, and found an issue that appeared unresolved, at least by the 220s of pages. Apparently at one point Frisia was known as "The Land of the Alans", which seems odd since the Alans never even made it to the Netherlands.

Well... http://www.annomundi...tory/alanus.htm

"Nennius, an 8th century historian, had sources available to him that have long since perished, but he preserved the following text in Chapter 17 of his Historia Brittonum... The first man that dwelt in Europe was Alanus, with his three sons, Hisicion, Armenon, and Neugio. Hisicion had four sons, Francus, Romanus, Alamanus, and Bruttus.

According to the Travels of Noah, there were some early inhabitants of Spain called the Alani, and together with them we find the Goths who are also mentioned by Nennius, as the people of Gothus (son of Armenon, son of Alanus).

Alanus set off on a voyage to Spain. He took his three sons with him, and his grandsons, and he may have stopped in Italy on the way and dropped some of them off.

By studying the etymology of Turkish place names, it is possible to trace the migration of the family of Alanus as far as the two sea ports of Fethiya and Alanya."

Quote:

This is unrelated, but currently I'm reading through the old thread, and found an issue that appeared unresolved, at least by the 220s of pages. Apparently at one point Frisia was known as "The Land of the Alans", which seems odd since the Alans never even made it to the Netherlands.

As I have shown, years ago, this is based on a misreading of an ancient text, and discovered by Halbertsma:

TRANSISALANIA => TRANS -ISALANIA => The land on the other side of the ISALA (=the IJssel river).

But why Alans?

Because of this: TRANSISALANIA => TRANSIS_ALANIA.

.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whelp. I just discovered there's a possibility I'm Frisian.

So *thats* why this thread is so interesting and I love the Dutch! :P

And the funny thing is that I am probably more Frisian than most participating in this thread. It's just that my ancestors loved to f around with foreign women.

Must be genetics, for that is my favorite 'hobby' too, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning "Lumka-makia":

-machy dictionary.gif

word-forming element meaning "battle, war, contest," from Greek -makhia, from makhe "a battle, fight," related to makhesthai "to fight," from PIE root *magh- (2) "to fight."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes perfect sense.

1600 years ago Atland sank and at that time (2194BC).... The writer knows when they wrote it - the reader doesn't know. We only know because of Hidde's letter.

The writer imo is relating something that happened when Atland sank.

And I agree with you on this one, Puzz.

THAT is what one gets from reading the OLB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hidde letter, with the date of the sinking of Aldland, was nothing but an extra to pin down all the dates as mentioned in the OLB.

Without that letter we would not have known when everything mentioned in the OLB actually had happened.

That's was a really nice guesture of Hidde.....heh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

This is unrelated, but currently I'm reading through the old thread, and found an issue that appeared unresolved, at least by the 220s of pages. Apparently at one point Frisia was known as "The Land of the Alans", which seems odd since the Alans never even made it to the Netherlands.

As I have shown, years ago, this is based on a misreading of an ancient text, and discovered by Halbertsma:

TRANSISALANIA => TRANS -ISALANIA => The land on the other side of the ISALA (=the IJssel river).

But why Alans?

Because of this: TRANSISALANIA => TRANSIS_ALANIA.

.

.

:blush::hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I agree with you on this one, Puzz.

THAT is what one gets from reading the OLB.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hidde has told us the year he is in and the time from the sinking of Aldland, that's how we know Aldland sank in 2193/4BC.

Only readers after Hidde can work out the year Aldland sank. The writers knew when it sank, cause many referred to it. No text fragment indicates a year to backcount from except Hidde's.

When the part about Jes-us is written, she says 1600 years ago Aldland was sunken - so she writes 1600 years after 2193BC, which places her time of writing at 593BC, but we only know this from reading Hidde's letter.

As I said the Angelfire site inserts this: Sixteen hundred years ago (she writes, 593 B.C.), Atland was submerged; and at that time something happened which nobody had reckoned upon.

Or did you mean for me to explain something else? I wasn't quite sure...

Thnx all for the quick input on this.

I wasn't sure how to interprete, and still not 100%.

I always took it a bit as certitude that the Jesus story was situated about 1600 after Aldland submersion (593 BC).

But when looking at the OLB text I doubted (even the Sandbach translation).

Though I think there is something to say like O. interprete 1600 after Aldland submersion is the time the narration is about, this means that Jesus lived in the time of Adela, right?

And the one writing it somewhere within approx 300 years after Jesus/Adela time (because at latest in the time Wiljow living)?

But Wiljow says she will state first the books left by Hellenia because they are the oldest (compared to the ones left by Adela).

The Jesus story is one of the first she mentions, so one would think the Jesus story to be narrated as one of the writings left by Hellenia?

Either way, I still can't fit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thnx all for the quick input on this.

I wasn't sure how to interprete, and still not 100%.

I always took it a bit as certitude that the Jesus story was situated about 1600 after Aldland submersion (593 BC).

But when looking at the OLB text I doubted (even the Sandbach translation).

Though I think there is something to say like O. interprete 1600 after Aldland submersion is the time the narration is about, this means that Jesus lived in the time of Adela, right?

And the one writing it somewhere within approx 300 years after Jesus/Adela time (because at latest in the time Wiljow living)?

But Wiljow says she will state first the books left by Hellenia because they are the oldest (compared to the ones left by Adela).

The Jesus story is one of the first she mentions, so one would think the Jesus story to be narrated as one of the writings left by Hellenia?

Either way, I still can't fit it.

When I follow my second thought "aha, Jesus lived in the time Aldland sunk" (like Puzz i understand) the same problem:

It was written in 593 BC, but this then can't be part of the writings left by Hellenia? Or somebody who wrote them down at that moment as the writings of Hellenia?

It was when Adela lived.

I start to fixate on "who wrote that it was 1600 years after Aldland sunk, whether it be Jesus himself or the moment it was written down".

Wiljow? Difficult because she lived some 300 years later.

Adela?

It must have been during the time Adela lived, and Denmark was lost. But why says Wiljow that it is part of the older writings?

Maybe Hidde derived himself the year that Aldland sank, by this passage, assuming/kowing or thinking to know who wrote when the phrase "Sixteen hundred years ago".

If OLB says Jesus lived when Aldland sank, a contemporary of Adela must have written down the phrase "Sixteen hundred years ago".

If it was Adela not, it must have been one on par with her. More probably it was she, but then the Jesus story would have been depicted by Wiljow as a part of Adela's writings, not the older one of Hellenia which she states clearly to mention first.

How strange, do I miss something in both înterpretations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been here before.

At 16. June 2011, I said:

Why do you think it was written 600 BC? Because we know when Atland sank. Why is the author mentioning "1600 after Atland sank"? Not to say when it was written, because it is followed by "and at that time something happened". Also the whole story does not fit in the time of these big disasters, because that time was all about surviving.

[...]

The story about Jes-us from Kasamir is placed between the writings of Hel-lenja (starting at p.134 of the original manuscript), that are added by Wil-jo, widow of Fretho-rik 'Oera Linda'.

Wiljo and Frethorik lived ca. 300 BC.

It's more likely that she added a text about something that happened 300 years before her time (600 BC), than that a (then) 300 years old text was added about something that had happened 1900 years before her time.

Also, if Jes-us really lived 2200 BC, and if he was really that important, then why did he not appear earlier in the Book of the Followers of Adela that deals about the period 2200-600BC?

[...]

Not everything can be translated literally, sometimes one needs to interpret what is meant.

In this case it is clear. It's like someone of our time who is a bit clumsy with language would say:

"1600 years ago Christ was born, and in that year something odd happened..."

If this is written for future generations, we need a reference of WHEN this was written, to know when Christ was born.

But we don't need to know when Christ was born, because all our year-counting was based on this reference-year zero.

So what the writer here means to say is that "something odd happened 1600 years after Christ was born."

Now it's the same with the Atland-sinking year. That was their year zero.

If the Jes-us story really happened then, the writer would just have said: "when Atland sank".

And on 17. June:

Someone who is writing history uses a known reference point to make it clear when something happened.

Here (as it is usually in the OLB), this reference point is the sinking of Atland (that we know from Hidde's letter was supposed to have been ca.2200 years before our point of reference: BC).

When something happened "at that time" when it was "16 times 100 years ago" that Atland had sank, it means that the story that is about to be told, has to be placed 1600 years AFTER the point of reference (when Atland had sank), that is for us: ca.600 BC.

[...]

Let's suppose that OLB's Jes-us/ Kris-en/ Fo/ Buda is referring to someone historical or mythological, whether OLB is authentic or a hoax.

Is there someone that's supposed to have lived ca. 2200 BC that can be referred to here?

Anyone???

What about ca. 600 BC?

Yes: Buddha a.k.a. Fot.]

On 18. June:

... we don't know when it was written.

Only that Wiljo copied it ca 300 BC from the writings of Dela aka Hellenja (who is probably not the same as Adela).

It does not make sense to write that Atland sank 1600 years ago (not being the point of reference), when there is no reference as to when it was written.

June 19:

Your interpretation is that the story starts with saying when it was written (which does not make sense).

My (and Alewyn's and Jensma's) interpretation is that the story starts with saying when this "something" happened (which makes perfect sense).

If this "something" happened when Atland sank, the author would just have written "when Atland sank, something happened..." etcetera.

[...]

Just think of it like this:

"it was/is 1600 years after Atland had sank... at THAT time something happened"

or:

"(it was) 1600 years ago (that) Atland had sank... at THAT time (when it was 1600 years after Atland had sank), something happened"

Edited by Othar Winis

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.