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 4
Abramelin

Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 3]

1,318 posts in this topic

Yes..it is a place where a group of people with an interest in the Oera Linda book , have come together randomly over

the years , and hundreds of pages , in order to discuss if there are any proofs that can be found , as to the true history ,

or the falsity of the book , so far we have been unsuccesful in this endeavour , but get enjoyment out of it , plus a sense of comradeship in a mutual interest.

I couldn't have put it any better myself. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buddhism based on Frisian religion? The Frisians sailed to South America to the Inca empire? Frisians colonized ancient India? Frisians founded Athens and Athenian democracy?

The OLB was written in the 19th century. The claim it is a medieval manuscript has been falsified by scientific testing of the paper and ink.

"There is nothing in the narratives of this book inconsistent with probability, however they may vary from some of our preconceived ideas.;"

Strange then, how previously it was shown to be authentic. (Translators Preface) http://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/olb/olb02.htm

All carefully-written manuscripts of great antiquity show by the regularity of their lines that they must have been ruled, even though no traces of the ruled lines can be distinguished. To make the lines they used a thin piece of lead, a ruler, and a pair of compasses to mark the distances.

In old writings the ink is very black or brown; but while there has been more writing since the thirteenth century, the colour of the ink is often grey or yellowish, and sometimes quite pale, showing that it contains iron. All this affords convincing proof that the manuscript before us belongs to the middle of the thirteenth century, written with clear black letters between fine lines carefully traced with lead. The colour of the ink shows decidedly that it does not contain iron. By these evidences the date given, 1256, is satisfactorily proved, and it is impossible to assign any later date.

I will conclude with one more remark regarding the language. Those who have been able to take only a superficial view of the manuscript have been struck by the polish of the language, and its conformity with the present Friesland language and Dutch. In this they seem to find grounds for doubting the antiquity of the manuscript.

But, I ask, is, then, the language of Homer much less polished than that of Plato or Demosthenes? And does not the greatest portion of Homer's vocabulary exist in the Greek of our day?

It is true that language alters with time, and is continually subject to slight variations, owing to which language is found to be different at different epochs. This change in the language in this manuscript accordingly gives ground for important observations to philologists. It is not only that of the eight writers who have successively worked at the book, each is recognisable by slight peculiarities in style, language, and spelling; but more particularly between the two parts of the book, between which an interval of more than two centuries occurs, a striking difference of the language is visible, which shows what a slowly progressive regulation it has undergone in that period of time. As the result of these considerations, I arrive at the conclusion that I cannot find any reason to doubt the authenticity of these writings. They cannot be forgeries. In the first place, the copy of 1256 cannot be. Who could at that time have forged anything of that kind? Certainly no one. Still less any one at an earlier date. At a later date a forgery is equally impossible, for the simple reason that no one was acquainted with the language. Except Grimm, Richthofen, and Hettema, no one can be named sufficiently versed in that branch of philology, or who had studied the language so as to be able to write in it. And if any one could have done so, there would have been no more extensive vocabulary at his service than that which the East Frisian laws afford.

Therefore, in the centuries lately elapsed, the preparation of this writing was quite impossible. Whoever doubts this let him begin by showing where, when, by whom, and with what object such a forgery could be committed, and let him show in modern times the fellow of this paper, this writing, and this language.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is nothing in the narratives of this book inconsistent with probability, however they may vary from some of our preconceived ideas.;"

Strange then, how previously it was shown to be authentic. (Translators Preface) http://www.sacred-te...l/olb/olb02.htm

All carefully-written manuscripts of great antiquity show by the regularity of their lines that they must have been ruled, even though no traces of the ruled lines can be distinguished. To make the lines they used a thin piece of lead, a ruler, and a pair of compasses to mark the distances.

In old writings the ink is very black or brown; but while there has been more writing since the thirteenth century, the colour of the ink is often grey or yellowish, and sometimes quite pale, showing that it contains iron. All this affords convincing proof that the manuscript before us belongs to the middle of the thirteenth century, written with clear black letters between fine lines carefully traced with lead. The colour of the ink shows decidedly that it does not contain iron. By these evidences the date given, 1256, is satisfactorily proved, and it is impossible to assign any later date.

I will conclude with one more remark regarding the language. Those who have been able to take only a superficial view of the manuscript have been struck by the polish of the language, and its conformity with the present Friesland language and Dutch. In this they seem to find grounds for doubting the antiquity of the manuscript.

But, I ask, is, then, the language of Homer much less polished than that of Plato or Demosthenes? And does not the greatest portion of Homer's vocabulary exist in the Greek of our day?

It is true that language alters with time, and is continually subject to slight variations, owing to which language is found to be different at different epochs. This change in the language in this manuscript accordingly gives ground for important observations to philologists. It is not only that of the eight writers who have successively worked at the book, each is recognisable by slight peculiarities in style, language, and spelling; but more particularly between the two parts of the book, between which an interval of more than two centuries occurs, a striking difference of the language is visible, which shows what a slowly progressive regulation it has undergone in that period of time. As the result of these considerations, I arrive at the conclusion that I cannot find any reason to doubt the authenticity of these writings. They cannot be forgeries. In the first place, the copy of 1256 cannot be. Who could at that time have forged anything of that kind? Certainly no one. Still less any one at an earlier date. At a later date a forgery is equally impossible, for the simple reason that no one was acquainted with the language. Except Grimm, Richthofen, and Hettema, no one can be named sufficiently versed in that branch of philology, or who had studied the language so as to be able to write in it. And if any one could have done so, there would have been no more extensive vocabulary at his service than that which the East Frisian laws afford.

Therefore, in the centuries lately elapsed, the preparation of this writing was quite impossible. Whoever doubts this let him begin by showing where, when, by whom, and with what object such a forgery could be committed, and let him show in modern times the fellow of this paper, this writing, and this language.

It never was shown to be authentic. The only scientific tests done were in the report I quoted. The OLB "manuscript" dates to 1850.

But let's say it dates to 1256. How does this help? The OLB covers an ancient (not medieval) pseudo-history. So you have a book written 1000-2000 years (if not more) after the events it describes. This is not reliable. This would be like quoting a medieval text on Troy, such as the Historia destructionis Troiae and claiming it is historically valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OLB has all its own runes, i'm sure you've seen them.

If the OLB is authentic, we would expect to find this runic alphabet in an independent historical source. Instead no one had ever heard or read about the runes before the OLB was published in the 1870s.

Can you explain this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It never was shown to be authentic. The only scientific tests done were in the report I quoted. The OLB "manuscript" dates to 1850.

But let's say it dates to 1256. How does this help? The OLB covers an ancient (not medieval) pseudo-history. So you have a book written 1000-2000 years (if not more) after the events it describes. This is not reliable. This would be like quoting a medieval text on Troy, such as the Historia destructionis Troiae and claiming it is historically valid.

I dont think there is anything those of us here would like more than a current test done on the paper , this has

been promised on more than one occasion , but if it has been done , none of us can find any reported findings ,

this would obviously help clear the air.

2 people wrote down on a piece of paper who they thought may have made the paper , and they both matched , wow

must have come from there then .

You are right the paper test will only prove or disprove 13th century origin . however that may be one huge barrier

overcome , like Troy circa 1184 BC written about by Homer poss circ 880's ( and i have no idea of the age of the

oldest copy of |Homer we may have , it could be much later ? ) however it does not stop people studying history

from other countries , sources , new archaeology etc and trying to find some cross references for event relative

to their interest.

do you have absolutely no interest in any history unless you have a completely original source , or do you

refer to copies of copies from necesity ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It never was shown to be authentic.

Neither was any good evidence presented against authenticity.

The only scientific tests done were in the report I quoted.

That 'report' was merely a letter to a magazine and newspaper and those 'tests' were far from scientific.

The book seller and paper maker were not even scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Could not get the link to work will investigate and re-post

Edited by Passing Time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://en.m.wikiped....org/wiki/Açaí

Tenuous at best but that looks vaguely similar

Must be my old age, but isn't that about some palm tree??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

DeCamp, whatever you think will be news (for this thread) is old hat.

I am one of the few "unbelievers", btw.

Anyway, you should take the trouble to read part I and II of this thread, and see how much info we all dug up through the years.

I know, it will be a monstruous task, but if you don't you will be repeating things that have been discussed over till we all dropped from our chairs from fatigue, lol.

Just saying.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am one of the few "unbelievers"

You believe it's fake.

No hard evidence for that in the whole thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No hard evidence as to its authenticity either, which one would expect from a continent-trotting superculture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Cornelis Over de Linden to Dr. Ottema, 16-11-1871:

I don't have the slightest doubts that one day the truth will come float to the surface,

but now that I have studied your translation, I figure that the laws described in it are very radical,

and that when the theology it teaches would become that of the people again,

all sorts of clergymen would have to find a new job.

That is why I think they will oppose it as much as is in their power.

That includes academic (paid by power elite) historians and archaeologists.

Herman Wirth's archives were destroyed / stolen by the 'liberators'.

But as OdL wrote: One day...

Edited by Jan Ott
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clergy also attempted to destroy all remnants of Mayan culture and failed, and they occupied a vastly smaller locale then those wily Fryans. And besides, special pleading.

Who knows, maybe a burgh tower will be found one day. But until then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of Fryan culture (and language!) lives forth in various known traditions but all that is explained away as inspiration for the alleged 'fabrication'.

Burghs were already destroyed by enemies between 600 BCE and ca. year 0, as described in OLB, so it's nonsense to even suggest that any building would be left.

Most buildings will have been of wood anyway, and stones may simply have been re-used.

In the 13th century Floris V count of Holland built a castle in the village where I was born Wijdenes, and not a trace of it can be found today. They still have no clue where exactly it was located.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Clergy also attempted to destroy all remnants of Mayan culture and failed, and they occupied a vastly smaller locale then those wily Fryans. And besides, special pleading.

Who knows, maybe a burgh tower will be found one day. But until then...

1331899535.jpg

My city lies near the north end of the Liudgaarde. The tower has six sides, and is ninety feet high, flat-roofed, with a small house upon it out of which they look at the stars. On either side of the tower is a house three hundred feet long, and twenty-one feet broad, and twenty-one feet high, besides the roof, which is round. All this is built of hard-baked bricks, and outside there is nothing else. The citadel is surrounded by a dyke, with a moat thirty-six feet broad and twenty-one feet deep. If one looks down from the tower, he sees the form of the Juul.

There is/has been much excavation going on in Frisia and it all shows a large, thriving community from 2000BC and into the late Bronze Age. The problem is, not much can be found because the whole landscape has been compromised, however, they know they have really only just touched the surface and I believe we will see a lot more research there in the future.

All these pdf's are worth reading, they contain some of the archaeological research from the Bronze Age in Frisia.

Archaeological research of coastal farming communities on the southern North Sea coast, 2000-800 BC

Farmers of the coast is a research project revolving around the thesis that Bronze Age coastal communities were thriving farming communities with their own cultural identity and with a central position in communication networks.

(contains the above map) http://www.westfrisi...tions-1973.html

http://www.westfrisia.com/uploads/7/7/9/3/7793908/08_snbz1_roessingh_ef.pdf

http://www.westfrisia.com/uploads/7/7/9/3/7793908/lecture_sankelmark_settlements.pdf

http://www.jalc.nl/cgi/t/text/get-pdfce7c.pdf?c=jalc;idno=0501a02

As Jan just said, much of this is really lost, by way of natures forces and inundation of people who took over, even the original Frisian people actually do not exist, Roman times created a new Frisian people, ones who were not the original inhabitants of Frisia. Some lineages probably stayed on but in general the end of the original Frisii/Fryan people occurred in Roman times.

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.

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.

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

Edited by The Puzzler
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I researched the OLB briefly about fifteen years ago and then concluded that it was a forgery.

During the past one or two weeks other research caused me to have a look at the book again and I saw things in it that made sense to me now, based upon my earlier discoveries which no-one during the last two centuries could have known about. My conclusion now is that the OLB is genuine. I wonder what happened to the original 13th century manuscript, the one that Ottema inspected, for what is conserved now is not that original manuscript but the facsimile that was made off it in the 19th century.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the thread, Ell.

... my earlier discoveries which no-one during the last two centuries could have known about.

Would you share these discoveries with us, please?

... what is conserved now is not that original manuscript but the facsimile that was made off it in the 19th century.

Why do you think so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you share these discoveries with us, please?

Some of it is mentioned in one of my e-books. Unfortunately nobody buys e-books...

Why do you think so?

Ottema gave a convincing description of the original manuscript.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of it is mentioned in one of my e-books. Unfortunately nobody buys e-books...

So are you intending to participate.... or to promote the sale of your e-book ?

Ottema gave a convincing description of the original manuscript.

i have often thought the same as you , some of the discussion about the ink being black ,as it was early and did not contain

iron etc , and the actual look of the so called manuscript do not seem to bear each other out.

also all the talk of the secret meetings when the friends were supposedly sitting together concocting and inventing the "story"

is more likely to me they were copying out the original manuscript , in order to give it out in completed pages for the "experts"

to evaluate......i would have given out copies , and not let go of the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of it is mentioned in one of my e-books.

Why don't you give us some examples and the title of your book?

Ottema gave a convincing description of the original manuscript.

And why would the Tresoar version be different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you give us some examples and the title of your book?

It is just a handful of quotes from the OLB.

I checked, but the quotes are not in the e-book (let's call it A) I supposed they were in.

In fact my OLB quotes are in a small book (let's call it B ) I am working on these days; an interpretation of another 'Frisian' tale (let's call it C). I quoted some parts of that tale C in A.

I cannot mention the particulars, because then people will start to accuse me of promoting my own books - as has happened here already.

And why would the Tresoar version be different?

It is written on 19th century paper. Imagine what modern science could do if scientists could examine the original 13th century manuscript. For example, modern science can carbon date such a manuscript; Ottema did not have that technology available to him in the 19th century.

Edited by Ell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mean i have accused you of promoting your own book , then i would ask you to read my post again Ell , i merely asked a question of your intentions .

i think we all feel the more the merrier with regards to participants whether that be doubters , deniers or believers , we could do with some fresh imput , as we seem to have exhausted our own lines of enquiry , and could do with a fresh impetus

Edited by Passing Time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.