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

J is the tenth letter in the ISO basic Latin alphabet. Its normal name in English is jay /ˈ/ or jy /ˈ/;[1][2] when used for the y sound, it may be called yod (/ˈjɒd/ or /ˈjd/).

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

But it doesn't seem any earlier than i according to Wiki, not that it matters now anyway, the j is still called yod, like the dot on the i - and it was a sideline, so not important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand OD to be a bit more than a mere 'touching of fingers', lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, they found a 'Finda' in Rome.... or did they?

DNA Testing On 2,000-Year-Old Bones in Italy Reveal East Asian Ancestry

ScienceDaily (Feb. 2, 2010) — Researchers excavating an ancient Roman cemetery made a surprising discovery when they extracted ancient mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from one of the skeletons buried at the site: the 2,000-year-old bones revealed a maternal East Asian ancestry.

"These preliminary isotopic and mtDNA data provide tantalizing evidence that some of the people who lived and died at Vagnari were foreigners, and that they may have come to Vagnari from beyond the borders of the Roman Empire," says Prowse. "This research addresses broader issues relating to globalization, human mobility, identity, and diversity in Roman Italy."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100201171756.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand OD to be a bit more than a mere 'touching of fingers', lol.

I don't think you got the 'point'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you got the 'point'.

I got the 'yod', or arm .

So Wralda pushed his arm inside them, and then....

http://commons.wikim...aanite_alphabet

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE) was a student of

Plato (c. 423 – c. 347 BCE), who was a student of

Socrates (c. 469 – 399 BCE), who was a student of... a woman!

(according to Plato)

Her name was Diotima and she taught Socrates the philosophy of love.

Here is a fragment of Plato's Symposium, which reminds me of an OLB fragment (see below).

(It is not a strong argument for anything (yet), I just share it for now because I think parallels like this are interesting.)

Translation by Benjamin Jowett (1817 – 1893) Source

[207d-e: dialogue Diotima-Socrates]

Nay even in the life of the same individual there is succession and not absolute unity:

a man is called the same,

and yet in the short interval which elapses between youth and age,

and in which every animal is said to have life and identity,

he is undergoing a perpetual process of loss and reparation—

hair, flesh, bones, blood, and the whole body are always changing.

Which is true not only of the body, but also of the soul,

whose habits, tempers, opinions, desires, pleasures, pains, fears,

never remain the same in any one of us,

but are always coming and going;

and equally true of knowledge, and what is still more surprising to us mortals,

not only do the sciences in general spring up and decay,

so that in respect of them we are never the same;

but each of them individually experiences a like change.

(Original Greek text here)

~ ~ ~

OLB original manuscript p.102 lines 9-30 ~ "thet ôthera dél fonre form-lér"

[Dutch translation 1872 Ottema ~ p.141]

Maar doordien zijn leven steeds voortgaat,

zoo kan er ook niets op zijne plaats blijven.

Daarom verwisselen alle geschapene dingen van plaats,

van gedaante en ook van denkwijze.

Daarom mag de aarde zelve, noch eenig schepsel zeggen:

ik ben, maar wel: ik was.

Ook mag geen mensch zeggen: ik denk, maar bloot: ik dacht.

De knaap is grooter en anders als toen hij een kind was.

Hij heeft andere begeerten, neigingen en denkwijze.

De man en vader is en denkt anders als toen hij knaap was.

Even zoo de oude van dagen. Dat weet iedereen.

Bijaldien nu iedereen weet, en moet erkennen, dat hij steeds wisselt,

zoo moet hij ook bekennen, dat hij ieder oogenblik wisselt; ook terwijl hij zegt: ik ben;

en dat zijne denkbeelden veranderen, terwijl hij zegt: ik denk.

[English translation 1876 Sandbach ~ p.141]

but whereas his life is continually progressing,

nothing can remain stationary,

therefore all created things change their locality,

their form, and their thoughts.

So neither the earth nor any other created object can say,

I am; but rather, I was.

So no man can say, I think; but rather, I thought.

The boy is greater and different from the child;

he has different desires, inclinations, and thoughts.

The man and father feels and thinks differently from the boy,

the old man just the same. Everybody knows that.

Besides, everybody knows and must acknowledge that he is now changing,

that he changes every minute even while he says, I am,

and that his thoughts change even while he says, I think.

Deotyma.jpg

Diotima by Józef Simmler, 1855

Edited by Otharus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same website you linked Abe...

"Suspended in mid-air, yod is the smallest of the Hebrew letters, the 'atom' of the consonants, and the form of which all the other letters begin and end.

The first dot with which the scribes start writing a letter, or the last dot that gives the letter it's final form - is the yod.

In the Jewish mystical tradition, yod represents a mere dot, a divine point of energy. Since yod is used to produce all the other letters, and since God uses the letters as the building blocks of creation, yod indicates God's omnipresence.

Yod is considered the starting point of the presence of God in all things - the "spark" of the spirit in all things."

http://www.hebrew4ch...et/Yod/yod.html

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always good to wander off to other threads:

(from Caesar's The Bello Gallico, Book 6) :

(14.1)--The Druids do not go to war, nor pay tribute together with the rest; they have an exemption from military service and a dispensation in all matters.

(14.2) Induced by such great advantages, many embrace this profession of their own accord, and [many] are sent to it by their parents and relations.

(14.3) They are said there to learn by heart a great number of verses; accordingly some remain in the course of training twenty years.

(14.4) Nor do they regard it lawful to commit these to writing, though in almost all other matters, in their public and private transactions, they use Greek characters.

http://www.unexplain...6

Now if we can find an ancient Greek text that says the Celts used characters similar to but not the same as their own, we will be getting somewhere....

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE) was a student of

Plato (c. 423 – c. 347 BCE), who was a student of

Socrates (c. 469 – 399 BCE), who was a student of... a woman!

(according to Plato)

Her name was Diotima and she taught Socrates the philosophy of love.

Here is a fragment of Plato's Symposium, which reminds me of an OLB fragment (see below).

(It is not a strong argument for anything (yet), I just share it for now because I think parallels like this are interesting.)

Translation by Benjamin Jowett (1817 – 1893) Source

[207d-e: dialogue Diotima-Socrates]

Nay even in the life of the same individual there is succession and not absolute unity:

a man is called the same,

and yet in the short interval which elapses between youth and age,

and in which every animal is said to have life and identity,

he is undergoing a perpetual process of loss and reparation—

hair, flesh, bones, blood, and the whole body are always changing.

Which is true not only of the body, but also of the soul,

whose habits, tempers, opinions, desires, pleasures, pains, fears,

never remain the same in any one of us,

but are always coming and going;

and equally true of knowledge, and what is still more surprising to us mortals,

not only do the sciences in general spring up and decay,

so that in respect of them we are never the same;

but each of them individually experiences a like change.

(Original Greek text here)

~ ~ ~

OLB original manuscript p.102 lines 9-30 ~ "thet ôthera dél fonre form-lér"

[Dutch translation 1872 Ottema ~ p.141]

Maar doordien zijn leven steeds voortgaat,

zoo kan er ook niets op zijne plaats blijven.

Daarom verwisselen alle geschapene dingen van plaats,

van gedaante en ook van denkwijze.

Daarom mag de aarde zelve, noch eenig schepsel zeggen:

ik ben, maar wel: ik was.

Ook mag geen mensch zeggen: ik denk, maar bloot: ik dacht.

De knaap is grooter en anders als toen hij een kind was.

Hij heeft andere begeerten, neigingen en denkwijze.

De man en vader is en denkt anders als toen hij knaap was.

Even zoo de oude van dagen. Dat weet iedereen.

Bijaldien nu iedereen weet, en moet erkennen, dat hij steeds wisselt,

zoo moet hij ook bekennen, dat hij ieder oogenblik wisselt; ook terwijl hij zegt: ik ben;

en dat zijne denkbeelden veranderen, terwijl hij zegt: ik denk.

[English translation 1876 Sandbach ~ p.141]

but whereas his life is continually progressing,

nothing can remain stationary,

therefore all created things change their locality,

their form, and their thoughts.

So neither the earth nor any other created object can say,

I am; but rather, I was.

So no man can say, I think; but rather, I thought.

The boy is greater and different from the child;

he has different desires, inclinations, and thoughts.

The man and father feels and thinks differently from the boy,

the old man just the same. Everybody knows that.

Besides, everybody knows and must acknowledge that he is now changing,

that he changes every minute even while he says, I am,

and that his thoughts change even while he says, I think.

Deotyma.jpg

Diotima by Józef Simmler, 1855

Very interesting Otharus, thnx for sharing.

Now that you are more into philosophy ... maybe you can help.

When actually did the first text of Plat-Ho (high plate, everybody knows that :-) come above the water (or from the shelve).

Is that something you can check by some persons in the faculty who don't need to rely on internet reproductions to check that?

I mean really:

1) discovery of original first hand Plato scriptures (do they exist, that would be a small wonder ;-)

(-> no quote by others).

and/or

2) the first mentionning of Plato in time

(-> so not the alleged earliest scriptures wherein he's mentionned, because many earlier mentionnings are 'found' later)

(-> meaning when did we hear about Plato for the first time, eg if we found a source/copy allegedly dated to 200 BC but found in 14th CE -> 14th CE)

If possible with some small references to where/when/by whom.

Only in your spare time hé Otharus.

Please don't let me put you on a side-track for more important stuff you have to tackle ;-)

Edited by Van Gorp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I even wanted to join your thread I would need month to came where you are. Is there any sum of your research so far...maybe? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same website you linked Abe...

"Suspended in mid-air, yod is the smallest of the Hebrew letters, the 'atom' of the consonants, and the form of which all the other letters begin and end.

The first dot with which the scribes start writing a letter, or the last dot that gives the letter it's final form - is the yod.

In the Jewish mystical tradition, yod represents a mere dot, a divine point of energy. Since yod is used to produce all the other letters, and since God uses the letters as the building blocks of creation, yod indicates God's omnipresence.

Yod is considered the starting point of the presence of God in all things - the "spark" of the spirit in all things."

http://www.hebrew4ch...et/Yod/yod.html

Just some earlier mentionnings (1614) about the I-OD and the Duytsch language.

Iod1.jpg

Iod.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I even wanted to join your thread I would need month to came where you are. Is there any sum of your research so far...maybe? :rolleyes:

Hi L, Abe/Otharus/Puzzler are the longest participators. I would miss a whole lot if I would summarize from what i saw :-)

But glad you're also interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When actually did the first text of Plat-Ho (high plate, everybody knows that :-) come above the water (or from the shelve).

[...]

1) discovery of original first hand Plato scriptures (do they exist, that would be a small wonder ;-)

[...]

2) the first mentioning of Plato in time

That is a very good question.

I read somewhere that the oldest manuscripts were from c. 900 CE, but don't know a reference.

If that is true, imagine how much the various copyists may have left out, changed and added!

Someone who thought the texts were important enough to copy, may very well have had some sort of religious or political agenda. He surely will have had more and less favorite parts... (and own ideas about it.)

So how much of it is authentic?!

I guess there will be studies about this.

Of course it's not only the texts that are supposed to be from 'Flatteau' himself, but there was also his famous student Aristotle (aristo-kratos => aristo-telos => purpose, end, goal?) who referred to his teacher, but for his work we have the same question of authenticity.

What I have learned so far is that those works were studied more in the Arab world first, when they were still taboo in the early Christian world.

I will try to find out more (in the spare time ;-).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just some earlier mentionnings (1614)...

Can you add the sources of those fragments please, VG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any sum of your research so far?

Yes it would be good to make our personal summaries.

I think Alewyn Raubenheimer made a good one as one of his last posts here or at Historum.

To compare our different viewpoints would be interesting too, as mine will be different of those by Abe and Puzzler.

When I have more time I will try to make an effort.

For now I will limit myself to this summarizing consideration:

If OLB would be a hoax, this should have become more evident through time, but the opposite is the case.

All classical arguments against authenticity have systematically been refuted.

Abe's main argument, that OLB must be a hoax, because it's authenticity has not been proven is an argument from ignorance;

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. (source: wikipedia)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Abe.

I asked you some time ago to summarize the arguments for your 'verdict'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some earlier mentionnings (1614) about the I-OD and the Duytsch language.

Iod1.jpg

Iod.jpg

Yeah, I'm staying on OD, after 5+ pages of investigating it.

The Latin appears to say that OD means God, why am I not surprised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I even wanted to join your thread I would need month to came where you are. Is there any sum of your research so far...maybe? :rolleyes:

Quite frankly, you could have come in on the 10,000th page and still been no wiser, after all these pages, we haven't really gone anywhere, except in circles imo - but it's been fun - so feel free to contribute anything.

Just read the Oera Linda Book first imo. http://oeralinda.angelfire.com

Ignore Abe if he says we've already discussed so and so. lol

We might have discussed it but very little answers have been solved. I for one, would enjoy hearing another opinion or view.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does appear that Wralda's might be part of the OD sentence, since there is no full stop after Wraldas and the word OD, as Otharus stated.

od.jpg

So, in saying that:

Wraldas spirit tread inside them.

is what I'd write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite frankly, you could have come in on the 10,000th page and still been no wiser, after all these pages, we haven't really gone anywhere, except in circles imo - but it's been fun - so feel free to contribute anything.

Just read the Oera Linda Book first imo. http://oeralinda.angelfire.com

Ignore Abe if he says we've already discussed so and so. lol

We might have discussed it but very little answers have been solved. I for one, would enjoy hearing another opinion or view.

The only reason I often said we already discussed this and that is, that sometimes people appear to have forgotten..... they actually discussed it. Now it is not bad to rekindle an old discussion, but at least refer to what has been discussed before.

For those who dropped in late, there is a way of knowing if something has been discussed before (in the archived part -1- of this thread), or even mentioned, and that is what I posted for 'The Mule' a couple of days ago

Google: "keyword(s)" "archived" "oera linda" "unexplained mysteries". All these at same time, and WITH quotation marks.

I just think it's better to first start reading what went on before (on some subtopic), and then come with new ideas and insights and finds.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Frya's name is really related to 'peace', which in this context, would equal freedom.

go-d-fre-th-o

10, afries., st. M. (u): nhd. Gottesfriede, allgemeiner Friede; ne.

divine peace (N.); Q.: H, R; I.: Lüs. lat. põx deÆ; E.: s. go-d, fre-th-o; L.: Hh 35a,

Rh 779b

fre-th-o

200 und häufiger?, fre-th-e (2), fer-d (2), afries., st. M. (u): nhd. Friede,

Schutz, Buße für Friedensbruch, Besitzrecht, Gerichtssprengel; ne. peace (N.),

protection, fine (N.) for violaton, right (N.), district (N.); ÜG.: lat. põx K 2, K 13,

L 13, K 9, L 12, K 11, K 12, L 19, L 20; Vw.: s. õ-, dÆk-, fel-d-, go-d-, her-e-, hof-,

hð-s-, jeld-e-, liæd-, merk-ad-, pÆl-, plæch-, râ-f-, Rðm-, sin-u-th-, skip-, sæn-e-,

strÆ-d-, thing-, un-, warf-, ze-r-k-, -ba-n-n, -bre-k-er, -ê-th, -fest, -lâ-s, -lâ-s-hê-d,

*-lik, -lik-hê-d, *-man-n, -pan-n-ing, -skip; Hw.: vgl. got. *friþus, an. friOEr, ae. friþ,

friþu, anfrk. fritho, as. frithu*, ahd. fridu; Q.: R, B, E, F, H, S, W, Jur, K 2, K 13,

L 13, K 9, L 12, K 11, K 12, L 19, L 20, AA 209; E.: germ. *friþu-, *friþuz, st.

M. (u), Liebe, Freundschaft, Friede; s. idg. *prõi-, *prýi-, *prÂ-, V., Adj., gern

haben, schonen, lieben, friedlich, froh, Pokorny 844; W.: nfries. freed, fre; W.:

saterl. fre; L.: Hh 31b, Rh 760a, AA 209

http://www.koeblergerhard.de/germanistischewoerterbuecher/altfriesischeswoerterbuch/afries-F.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason I often said we already discussed this and that is, that sometimes people appear to have forgotten..... they actually discussed it. Now it is not bad to rekindle an old discussion, but at least refer to what has been discussed before.

For those who dropped in late, there is a way of knowing if something has been discussed before (in the archived part -1- of this thread), or even mentioned, and that is what I posted for 'The Mule' a couple of days ago

Google: "keyword(s)" "archived" "oera linda" "unexplained mysteries". All these at same time, and WITH quotation marks.

I just think it's better to first start reading what went on before (on some subtopic), and then come with new ideas and insights and finds.

.

and where is The Mule now? I see it as people thinking they have missed the conversation and don't feel like they can add anything, once it's been pointed out it's already been discussed. But anyone is free to do that of course. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Otharus, here it is:

Ok, a summary of my reasons why I think the OLB is not what it is supposed to be, an authentic MS of ancient European history.

- Absense of archeological proof. No 'citadels', no other examples of the OLB script, or no truely ancient text that tells about an ancient European/Nordic empire (ranging from Spain to the Baltic).

_ Not a single word about for example a megalithic structure like Stonehenge, though it was well known by the ancient Romans and Greeks (and Stonehenge is located in Britain, the 'penal colony' of the Fryan Empire). Not a single word about the construction of any Western European megalithic structure for that matter, though they were still being built long after 2194 BC. All we hear about is those 'citadels' - that must have been all over Europe, but that no one has found any archeological proof of.

- The OLB was in the possession of a man who wanted his family history to look greater than life.

- This same man owned books of which we can almost read literal quotes from in the OLB (Volney's "The Ruines" for instance - check my OLB blog in my signature), plus books about ancient scripts, Old Frisian language, and books about Greek and Roman legends and myths, mythology in general, ship-building, and so on.

- This same man had written texts before that showed similar linguistic errors, and similar (philosophical) ideas as we can find in the OLB.

- Contradictory testimonies of witnesses. One (by a head teacher called "Sipkens") even said this man - decades before the OLB was published - showed him an 'ancient' document of his family history, and even read and recited from it, to this man Sipkens. Later on he claimed to Ottema and Verwijs he was not able to read it, and that he needed their help...

- One testimony - from his grandson - said that in the evening several learned men came around in Enkhuizen, discussed what this guy, Over de Linden , had fabricated during the days before, and that they "all roared with laughter".

- Linguistics: linguists then and now say the language used in the OLB can not be really ancient: it contains modernisms, anachronisms (like a Godfreyath the Sea-kening, the Wit-kening = Godfried the Seaking/Viking/ BEDRVM = bedroom, a word introduced during Shakespearian times and not seen before). And they say the language is simply TOO MODERN.

- It has been said many times in this thread that linguistics is not an exact science, meaning: we all can have a shot at it. Heh, I agree, so why use it to prove the OLB? It won't prove anything. It's mere play with words.

- Old English (Willibrords language) is said to be VERY similar to Old Frisian... but it's not anything like the OLB language. So... the OLB language resembled Frisian medieval law texts thousands of years ago, then centuries later that language must've resembled Old English texts from thousands of years later, and then, in 1256 AD it magically changed back to what it was thousands of years before.

- About those Vikings: the OLB mentiones 'witkings' or 'witkenings', like the Vikings were known in south-eastern France and north-eastern Spain: Vitkings. Also a medieval Frisian legend telling us about the Viths, according to that legend another word for Jutes.. Their king, their VIKING king would no doubt have been called Vith-kening.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you add the sources of those fragments please, VG?

Sure, passe partout when it comes to crazy etymologies, for one reason or another he seems to have his own ideas for many topics handled here.

:-) Schrieckius (Adriaen Van Scrieck dus)

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Titlepage:

Beghin.jpg

The book is written mostly in Dutch but with many Latin references/texts what makes it a bit difficult to digest it all at a short time.

Though easier to read than with Becanus' works -> those are entirely in Latin because in his eyes the topic is relevant for a big part of world history and wanted to address the public accordingly in the than used scholar language.

So maybe a short description of some recent researchers to have an understanding about his views.

.

Schrieckius.jpg

So in short:

Schrieckius (as with Becanus) had done some deep historical/linguistical studies and holding high positions in daily live -> they took a risk concerning credibility.

Nevertheless, was non-stopable in proclaiming his views about

  • the 'lies' in Greek history and myths
  • the misunderstood history of the Romans (even by their own). Romulus and Remus story one of them :-)
  • downplaying the historical roots of other languages/cultures which they called barbaric

Also the reduction of almost all what is original in language to the Hebrew line, is not in line with his research results.

Practically independent of Hebrew/Greek/Latin, the Dietsch (Tuytsch, Teuts) language has his own rich history and need to be studied accordingly as going further in time than Greek/Latin.

This is by many now approached as naïve. I think that can be pretty naïve also :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dutch Israelism is the belief the Dutch people, or people of the Netherlands, particularly the Frisians of the province Friesland, descend from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.

Early Sources

Adriaan van der Schrieck (1560–1621) a Flemish language researcher in 1614 first made this identification:

"...the Netherlanders with the Gauls and Germans together in the earliest times were called: Celts, who are come out of the Hebrews."

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

Van Gorp, weren't you the one saying you didn't like all those supposed (linguistic) connections between our low lands and ancient Israel or the Hebrews?

What made you change you mind?"

A convenient quote?

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.