[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

[cormac mac airt]

No. All these dates prove the OLB's cedibility.

What DATES (plural)? According to YOU and the OP, based on the OLB, everything collapsed in 2193 BC. There are no 'dates', there is one 'date'. The fact that you are taking all these other general timeframes and trying to cram them into the date of 2193 BC is what is galling. Even I'm of the opinion that an event or events happened over a relatively short period of time in the 3rd millenium BC to change history. However, I'm not conceited enough to believe that I can cram these events all into one specific date. That you apparently are indicates to me that you are not to be taken seriously.

cormac

[Abramelin]

That is not true, I just said it begs for improvement.

So do the translations by Ottema and Jensma in my opinion (the others I don´t know).

edit:

Abram, you claim you can read OLB in one hour, you don´t take the effort to read Alewyn´s book (that you apparently recieved as a gift) and you systematically ignore relevant evidence that does not support your belief system.

I wonder why you spend so much time on this forum.

You just begged for improvement, right.

And Alewyn's book is close to 400 pages, the OLB is close to a couple of pages.

Btw, I already told you and everyone here why I spend so much time on this forum. *Snip*

Edited October 13, 2010 by Karlis
Deleted condescending remark

[Abramelin]

No. All these dates prove the OLB's cedibility. Must I spell out everything to you?

I am afraid you have received much more attention than your lack of logic or deductive reasoning deserve. *Snip*

You have been proven wrong about the tilting of the earth's axis 2200 BC.

You even admitted you were wrong.

Don't start talking down on people because you feel frustrated.

Admit you were wrong, and tell us you will publish a new edition of your book with lots of corrections.

*Snip*

Edited October 13, 2010 by Karlis
Deleted crude phrase

[SlimJim22]

The recent catastrophism espoused by Clube and Napier, although based on scientific evidence (Asher, 1994; Clube, 1992; Clube and Napier, 1990), is eschewed by neo-Velikovskians. Their work is not embraced by astronomers either, in no small part because of the bad name given catastrophism by Velikovsky. According to Clube and Napier, the Holocene has been punctuated by energetic, episodic interaction with the dense portion of the Taurid-Encke complex [whose formerly active annual fireball storms, perhaps evocative of a flood, radiated from near the Pleiades in November] , providing an astronomically sound explanation for the sky-combat myths [and mankind's archetypal fear of comets] that concerned Velikovsky in Worlds in Collision. As Clube and Napier once observed, "Velikovsky is not so much the first of the new catastrophists...; he is the last in a line of traditional catastrophists going back to mediaeval times and probably earlier" (1984). There is, as Mr. Cochrane states, "unequivocal evidence of the Earth's cataclysmic recent history," but careening planets have nothing to do with it. The mythological and physical evidence are best explained by the work of Kobres, Mandelkehr, Clube and his co-workers. [More recently in Exodus to Arthur: Catastrophic Encounters with Comets (1999) tree-ring specialist Mike Baillie makes a strong presumptive case for a Taurid-related vector associated with the global climate crises, or _Klimasturze_, at 2354 B.C., 1628 B.C., 1159 B.C., 207 B.C., and A.D. 540. As Baillie explains, the deeds of Patrick, Arthur, and Beowulf can all be associated with comet/meteor-related phenomena in the sixth-century when also Chinese "dragons" fought, felling all the trees in the places they passed, a la Tunguska in June 1908.] [Work by Lars G. Franzen at Earth Sciences Centre, Goteberg, Sweden, confirms most of Baillie's dates. Enhanced concentrations of micro-meteorites in peat from Swedish, Irish, and Norwegian bogs show that the cosmic influx was high at 7000 BC, 3000 BC, 2300 BC, 1700 BC, 1000 BC, 500 BC, 550 AD, 850 AD, 1300 AD and the peak of the "Little Ice Age" (Conference: Environmental Catastrophes and Recoveries in the Holocene, Aug. 29--Sep. 2, 2002, Dept. of Geography & Earth Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge, U.K.).]

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html

Seems reasonable enough I think. I'd like to see plasmoids given a little more consideration by the scientific community also but recognizing cometary passings and meteorite impacts as being a basis for many myths would be a start. There is a strong suggestion that some omphalos stones were originally meteorites such as the one at Delphi and the Kaaba stone. Probably more aswell. Perhaps this was the true origin of a lot of deities rather than them simply being related to weather.

I'd like to read Clube and Napier's The Cosmic Winter anyway. Alan Alford mention cataclysms in this article too.

http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/atlantis/greek.html

Some of you may appreciate this next one. Bit out of my remit.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1992JIMO...20...17S

[Karlis]

Those who have been bickering, stop doing so. Posts from the last three pages have been edited.

Karlis

[Alewyn]

You have been proven wrong about the tilting of the earth's axis 2200 BC.

You even admitted you were wrong.

Don't start talking down on people because you feel frustrated.

Admit you were wrong, and tell us you will publish a new edition of your book with lots of corrections.

*Snip*

You are absolutely the last guy to talk about guts.

I have shown on a few occasions that I am willing to admit that I am wrong - if only to get the debate moving in order to come to a conclusion. I have even on occasion apologised to somebody here.

Have you ever admitted that you were wrong or did you ever apologise for your extremely poor behaviour? No, you hide behind the fact that you are permanently bombed out of your mind. Why don't you start showing some guts and sober up so you can face life head on?

And no, I do not feel frustrated. I just do not see any benefits in debating with people who are so cemented into an opinion that they have lost all sense of logic, analytical and lateral thinking and deductive reasoning. This was exactly the same mentality that got people burned at the stakes for not admiting that the earth was flat nor the centre of the universe.

As for the "many" mistakes: you have only been able to pick up some "questionable" speculation on my side in chapter 1 of my book. What about the rest?

BTW. I recall that you told everybody here that your brother bought you my book. What made you change your story?

Just for the record: On a few occasions you expressed the view that you would have liked to read my book. You pleaded so much poverty, however, that I took pity on you and sent you a copy. For that I realy don't expect your undying devotion or loyalty. In fact, you don't owe me anything.

[TheSearcher]

Out of curiosity, Alewyn, have you completely put aside the idea of the 2200 event, you describe, being a Bond event, instead of the result of an hypothetical impact and subsequent crust sliding over the mantle?

There is more proof and evidence of Bond events and their cyclical nature, than there is of the crust sliding over mantle at the same period of time. Also, the dates seem to correspond a lot better.

[Otharus]

I just do not see any benefits in debating with people who are so cemented into an opinion that they have lost all sense of logic, analytical and lateral thinking and deductive reasoning. This was exactly the same mentality that got people burned at the stakes for not admiting that the earth was flat nor the centre of the universe.

FYI: I spent all yesterday in the archive that houses the OLB and a lot of publications and documents about it (Tresoar in Leeuwarden). Made some interesting copies. I´m at chapter 5 of "Survivors" and loving it.

One thing I´d like to share already;

Jensma about his thesis on OLB in Volkrant interview 23-12-2004 by Jan Blokker:

"Hier is inderdaad geen juridisch bewijs geleverd, maar -hopelijk op een voor de lezer en de toekomstige onderzoeker bevredigende manier- een hypothese getoetst."

-> He admitted that his thesis did not prove anything, that it´s only a tested hypothesis.

[Abramelin]

You are absolutely the last guy to talk about guts.

I have shown on a few occasions that I am willing to admit that I am wrong - if only to get the debate moving in order to come to a conclusion. I have even on occasion apologised to somebody here.

Have you ever admitted that you were wrong or did you ever apologise for your extremely poor behaviour? No, you hide behind the fact that you are permanently bombed out of your mind. Why don't you start showing some guts and sober up so you can face life head on?

And no, I do not feel frustrated. I just do not see any benefits in debating with people who are so cemented into an opinion that they have lost all sense of logic, analytical and lateral thinking and deductive reasoning. This was exactly the same mentality that got people burned at the stakes for not admiting that the earth was flat nor the centre of the universe.

As for the "many" mistakes: you have only been able to pick up some "questionable" speculation on my side in chapter 1 of my book. What about the rest?

BTW. I recall that you told everybody here that your brother bought you my book. What made you change your story?

Just for the record: On a few occasions you expressed the view that you would have liked to read my book. You pleaded so much poverty, however, that I took pity on you and sent you a copy. For that I realy don't expect your undying devotion or loyalty. In fact, you don't owe me anything.

In what way did I change my story? I just thanked you for sending the book, like Puzzler and I think Otharus did (and another Dutch person many pages ago who posted just once in this thread). I am reading the book, btw.

And I am not fiercely stubbornly holding on to my opinion, I just do not see proof for a more positive opinion.

I have said in the Doggerland thread that I really wished the OLB was nothing but a true account/old manuscript of ancient history. Why would I wish that? But I am just not convinced it is, and I haven't read anything here to change my mind. If a similar document shows up, using the same 'running script', but from let's say Poland, and it would be proven it was as old at it is supposed to be, I would welcome it. I remember I even said in this thread "I will send Alewyn a bottle of Sonnema Beereburg" if that would ever happen.

With "many mistakes" I do not mean your interpretation of the OLB, but mistakes made during the transliteration from the running script to Latin script. And then the errors made in Sandbach's (and other English translators) translation from Ottema's Dutch translation.

About admitting being wrong: I have done many times, but I post in quite a few forums here and I assume in forums you never visit.

Funny thing: I admitted being wrong about the "Balda Sea"...

About my personal state of mind: don't think I am constantly hammered as Otharus seems to suggest, and yes, I have on occasion excused myself for my behaviour.

[Otharus]

That is not true, I just said it begs for improvement.

So do the translations by Ottema and Jensma in my opinion (the others I don´t know).

An example to clarify

(OLB page 6; FORMA SKEEDNISE or "Survivors of the Great Tsunami" p. 312; Chapter II, pt.10/11):

http://picasaweb.google.nl/lh/photo/ybdqlkpMck0z4k_NrbPxYXNAAaOhiJ_uGZStZpKsyYM?feat=directlink

"... RING AS HJA RIP WEERON KREEION HJA FRUUCHDA AND NOCHTA ANDA DRAMA.

WR.ALDA.S OD TRAD TO RA BINNA. AND NW..."

Note that there is a point (.) between "DRAMA" and "WR.ALDA.S" and that there is no point between "WR.ALDA.S" and "OD".

The translations:

Ottema 1876 (dutch):

"Zoodra zij volwassen waren, kregen zij vermaak en genoegen in de droomen van Wralda.

Haat trad tot haar binnen."

Sandbach 1876 (english):

"As soon as they were full grown they took pleasure and delight in the visions of Wr-alda.

Hatred found its way among them."

Wirth 1933 (german):

(He just left out "RING ... DRAMA"!!!)

"Od (Gottes Odem) trat zu ihnen ein..."

Overwijn 1941 (dutch):

"Zodra zij volwassen waren, kregen zij vreugde en genoegen in de dromen van Wralda.

Geneugte kwam tot haar."

Jensma 1992 (dutch):

"Zodra zij volwassen waren, kregen ze vreugde en plezier in de dromen van Wralda.

Een spits trad in hun binnen, ..."

Snyman 1998 (afrikaans):

"En toe hulle volgroeid was, het hulle vreugde en genoegdoening geput uit die visioene van Wralda.

Haat het (egter) hulle harte binnegedring."

Jensma 2006 (dutch):

"Zo rap als ze rijp waren, kregen ze vreugde en genoten in Wralda's extase.

Gelukzaligheid trad tot hen binnen, ..."

de Heer 2008 (dutch):

"Zodra zij rijp waren kregen zij vreugde en genoegen en dromen.

Wralda's licht trad bij hen binnen, ..."

Note that de Heer (2008) is the first to correctly put the point between "dromen" and "Wralda´s".

Overview of the various translations of "OD":

Haat; Hatred (Ottema 1876, Sandbach 1876, Snyman 1998)

Gottes Odem; God´s breath (Wirth 1933)

Geneugte; pleasure (Overwijn 1941)

Een spits; a phallic object (Jensma 1992)

Gelukzaligheid; bliss (Jensma 2006)

Licht; light (de Heer 2008)

DISCUSSION

Ottema must have thought of the latin word "ODIUM" (meaning hatred) when he translated OD.

Od/Odr is a nordic root word meaning spirit, but in mythology is also the name of Freya´s lover or husband.

If I remember well, "ad" or "ath" is a root word meaning: branch of a (family) tree.

Logically, "od" might also have meant penis, semen or DNA, because after "od" penetrated the three young women, they became pregnant... It was probably an ambiguous, poetic word.

In my opinion it makes a huge difference if a creation myth says that our oldest ancestors were born out of hatred, or out of something more natural and hopefully even loving.

I´m not trained to be a translator, but if you´d ask me, I would improvise this:

"Soon as they were ripe, they begot dreams of ´fruits and nuts´ (fertility, procreation).

Wralda's rod penetrated them, ..."

Edited October 13, 2010 by Otharus

[Abramelin]

"... RING AS HJA RIP WEERON KREEION HJA FRUUCHDA AND NOCHTA ANDA DRAMA.

WR.ALDA.S OD TRAD TO RA BINNA. AND NW..."

You say it's a dot between DRAMA and WR.ALDA.S , but in the image you posted I see an underscore/line, connecting DRAMA and WR.ALDA.

But whatever it is, a dot or an underscore, it shows how easy it is to make errors during the transliteration.

==

EDIT:

*-od-ie. afries., Sb.: Vw.: s. kle-n

http://koeblergerhard.de/afrieswbhinw.html

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

So there is a word, 'od-ie' in old frisian (afries = alt fries), but I don't understand the explanation of the word in this German pdf.

.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Abramelin

[Essan]

I think I should clarify a few points here:

To Cormac:

1. The 2193 BC / 2200 BC event did happen - whatever the cause. The evidence is just too overwhelming to ignore - from archaeology, the ancient scribes to modern science.

I am unaware of any significant event around that time frame that affected the globe, though some minor impact is by no means out of the questions.

Any change in axial tilt would have had massive ramifications for global climate patterns. Unless, miraculously, the Earth shifted back to its original tilt within a few decades then such shifts, whether to warmer, colder, drier or wetter, would stand out strongly in palynological records (amongst others). There ought also be a clear change apparent in dendrochronological records (ie tree rings subsequent to the Event being distinctly smaller or larger to those prior, according to how the climate shifted). And there ought also be clear correlation in ice and lake cores, but indicative of climate shifts and fallout from the impact. I would suggest these are all far more credible sources than myth or even archaeology.

If I were to guess a time frame for any such major Holocene event then the obvious period would be ~5.2ky There were a number of noted climatic shifts around the world at this time (which in turn may have prompted the setting up of the world's first recognised civilisations). It's currently thought that a tipping point was reached around then due to changes in N Hemisphere insolation brought about by slow, subtle, changes in orbit (Milanovitch Cycles) and this in turn led amongst other things to a change in ENSO frequency. Though there is plenty of scope for discussion on this.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Essan

[Abramelin]

(...)

Unless, miraculously, the Earth shifted back to its original tilt within a few decades then such shifts, whether to warmer, colder, drier or wetter, would stand out strongly in palynological records (amongst others).

(...)

This the picture of the event on the cover of Alewyn's book:

(From: http://www.impactsurvivors.com/ )

According to Alewyn the earth's axis had a different tilt before 2193 BC, and after the 'event' the tilt became what it still is now.

[Abramelin]

Yesterday I was re-reading a chpater of an old book of mine, "De Stenen spreken, Het Geheimschrift van de Megalieten Ontcijferd" by R.M de Jonge, and G.F. IJzereef (Jonge, R.M. de, and IJzereef, G.F., De Stenen Spreken, Kosmos Z&K, Utrecht/Antwerpen, 1996 (ISBN 90-215-2846-0) (Dutch) ).

It's a complicated book (not if you are a sailor) and controversial to say the least.

The writers ( a chemist/self-made archeologist, and a professor in archeology) try to prove that many pictographs on West European megalithic structures are nothing but maps to sail/explore the oceans, and that during the mesolithic.

I was interested because, according to them, Doggerland/Dogger Island (as part of a map showing, according to them, the British Islands and the North Sea) is being depicted (during several stadia of its submergence/destruction) on one of those megalithic structures

Later on De Jonge, together with an American writer published his theory in another (english) book, "How the Sungod reached America" ( http://www.howthesungod.com/ ).

But a bit of googling made me find another of their theories,

http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/Tresse.html

( and here, http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/2345BC.html )

THE COMET CATASTROPHE OF c.2345 BC

(The Tresse Grave, Brittany, France)

© Copyright: 18 February 2009

Dr. R.M. de Jonge

Alas, the date is 150 years off.

====

Oh boy, this De Jonge is unstoppable:

Bronze Age Catastrophes

.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Abramelin

[Alewyn]

I am unaware of any significant event around that time frame that affected the globe, though some minor impact is by no means out of the questions.

Please see post #1296 on page 87 (also http://www.sis-group.org.uk/) as well as the 4.2ka B.P Bond Event.

As for an "apparent" shift in the poles, I based my speculation on two ancient writings namely "The Book of Enoch" which claimed that "the earth was thrown of its pillar" and "the earth became inclined" (or something along those lines) and the Oera Linda Book which stated that "before the bad times came, the sun rose higher". My approach is that, if these ancient scribes were correct, how do we explain this?

As pointed out by Cormac via Steven Dutch, the earths celestial axial tilt could not be changed by an asteroid impact without totally destroying all life on earth.

The next train of thought is then to look at resonance in earths crust caused by a lessor cosmic impact which could have caused the crust to "slip" on the Mantle.

[Abramelin]

The next train of thought is then to look at resonance in earths crust caused by a lessor cosmic impact which could have caused the crust to "slip" on the Mantle.

Are you suggesting resonance caused by a multitude of impacts, occurring during constant intervals of time? Like the Shoemaker-Levy comet that broke up into a train of fragments and impacted one after the other on Jupiter?

Something like the Tollmann Hypothesis?

.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

EDIT

Too personal.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Abramelin

[Otharus]

"... RING AS HJA RIP WEERON KREEION HJA FRUUCHDA AND NOCHTA ANDA DRAMA.

WR.ALDA.S OD TRAD TO RA BINNA. AND NW..."

"Soon as they were ripe, they begot dreams of ´fruits and nuts´ (fertility, procreation).

Wralda's rod penetrated them, ..."

On second thoughts, I would not try to translate "OD", but rather place a footnote.

"Wralda's od penetrated them, ..."

Nowhere in literature about OLB have I found the following, which I think is rather interesting:

The Odic force (also called Od [õd], Odyle, Önd, Odes, Odylic, Odyllic, or Odems) is the name given in the mid-19th century to a hypothetical vital energy or life force by Baron Carl von Reichenbach.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odic_force

Edited October 14, 2010 by Otharus

[Alewyn]

Are you suggesting resonance caused by a multitude of impacts, occurring during constant intervals of time? Like the Shoemaker-Levy comet that broke up into a train of fragments and impacted one after the other on Jupiter?

Something like the Tollmann Hypothesis?

.

I was not aware of the Tollmann Hypothesis but yes, something like Shoemaker-Levy.

Somebody suggested that the 2010 Chilean earthquake moved earth's poles very slightly (8 cm). We also have an abundance of evidence of tectonic plate movements which clearly indicates that earth's crust can move independently from the core and mantle.

Current theories have it that earth's inner (solid)core floats in a sea of molten magma with guestimate temperatures varying anything from 5500 deg C to 9000 deg C. This molten outer core (as well as the molten lower mantle) would then act as a "lubricant" that preserves the core's rotation and celestial axis against anything that my be happening in or on the crust. Any polar shifts that we may see can then perhaps be better termed as "apparent" shifts affecting only earths crust. Earth's inner angular velocity, axial tilt and magnetism(?) would not be affected.

When a large (say +1 km dia) asteroid strike earth (30 km/s or 108 000 km/hr) it could create resonance which greatly increases the shock wave amplitudes. The resultant earthquakes, plate movements, tsunamis, etc would be catastrophic but not to the extent of wiping out all life.

Consider the 1960 Chilean earthquake. Whilst the structural damage was enormous, the vast majority of people survived. Now project this devastation onto a global scale and add some giant tsunamis. Most coastal and low lying structures would be totally obliterated but further inland most people (and animals) would survive.

Structural engineers and architecs appreciate the enormous effects that resonance could have but many others grossly

underestimate the destructive power of forced resonance.

It is interesting to note the various observations that archaeologists made in the Middle East. Claude Schaeffer (1948) believed that the demise of civilization was caused by earthquakes. Harvey Weiss commented on the increased salt content of the ground. Marie Agnis Courty found evidence of volcanic ash and a total absence of earthworm activity. Now you add to this the description by old scribes what would appear to be cosmic impacts and, to my mind it all hangs together.

[TheSearcher]

I am unaware of any significant event around that time frame that affected the globe, though some minor impact is by no means out of the questions.

Any change in axial tilt would have had massive ramifications for global climate patterns. Unless, miraculously, the Earth shifted back to its original tilt within a few decades then such shifts, whether to warmer, colder, drier or wetter, would stand out strongly in palynological records (amongst others). There ought also be a clear change apparent in dendrochronological records (ie tree rings subsequent to the Event being distinctly smaller or larger to those prior, according to how the climate shifted). And there ought also be clear correlation in ice and lake cores, but indicative of climate shifts and fallout from the impact. I would suggest these are all far more credible sources than myth or even archaeology.

If I were to guess a time frame for any such major Holocene event then the obvious period would be ~5.2ky There were a number of noted climatic shifts around the world at this time (which in turn may have prompted the setting up of the world's first recognised civilisations). It's currently thought that a tipping point was reached around then due to changes in N Hemisphere insolation brought about by slow, subtle, changes in orbit (Milanovitch Cycles) and this in turn led amongst other things to a change in ENSO frequency. Though there is plenty of scope for discussion on this.

Could it be a combination of a Bond event and an event in the Milanovitch cycles? It would explain a lot if it were the case.

Edited October 14, 2010 by TheSearcher

[Alewyn]

Could it be a combination of a Bond event and an event in the Milanovitch cycles? It would explain a lot if it were the case.

I do not know too much about either. In fact, I know nothing about Milanovitch Cycles.

As I recall, Bond events have been proven and accepted. However, the cause of these events are still unclear. You have remarked earlier on the cyclical nature of Bond events and, to my mind, cosmic movements are very cyclical.

Is it not possible that Bond events are caused by cosmic impacts or earth's orbit crossing meteorite/asteroid clouds or swarms? The actual impacts may be of less importance than multiple "Tunguska-type" explosions in earth's atmosphere that could blot out the sun for extended periods. The drop in temperatures and larger snow cover would further deflect the sun's rays and thus trigger ice ages.

Your views?

[Essan]

Please see post #1296 on page 87 (also http://www.sis-group.org.uk/) as well as the 4.2ka B.P Bond Event.

Oops. My mistake I'd forgotten about that (bit too recent for me to be honest ) However this was a short term event only affecting only some parts of the world. Not a global shift in climate zones as would have occurred had there been a geographical polar shift or change in axial tilt.

This is a good site to look at regional climate changes over the past few thousand years.

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html

Whilst there have been a number periods when it has turned colder or drier in one region or another(likely due to changes in oceanic circulation), these have not been sudden long term shifts in climate. Climate has changed throughout the Holocene, but only slowly. There is no evidence for a sudden, permanent change caused by a single catastrophic event.

As for the book of Enoch - maybe he felt an earthquake? Only when no other possible interpretation exists should we use ancient texts as primary evidence (though it my provide supportive evidence if other more direct evidence exists - like a big impact crater or volcanic eruption that is indisputably dated to the same time period, for example)

[Essan]

I do not know too much about either. In fact, I know nothing about Milanovitch Cycles.

As I recall, Bond events have been proven and accepted. However, the cause of these events are still unclear.

The thing is, Bond Events, like D/O Events during the last Glacial, are North Atlantic Events - specifically affecting that region, though with some knock-on effects elsewhere. But they are not entirely global. This strongly suggests they are connected with changes in the Thermohaline Conveyor, though as you say their cause remains unclear.

Impacts would have different consequences according to whether they hit land or sea and which hemisphere they occurred in. And the number of impacts (or tunguska type air explosions) would vary. Each occasion ought, I think, be different and affect different places in different ways. I don't see them as a likely cause.

It's possible that a Bond Event may be more or less severe according to where we are in the Milankovitch Cycles - and, indeed, whether or not there is extensive ice cover in the N Hemisphere.

[Otharus]

Jensma about his thesis on OLB in Volkrant interview 23-12-2004 by Jan Blokker:

"Hier is inderdaad geen juridisch bewijs geleverd, maar -hopelijk op een voor de lezer en de toekomstige onderzoeker bevredigende manier- een hypothese getoetst."

-> He admitted that his thesis did not prove anything, that it´s only a tested hypothesis.

Goffe Th. Jensma wrote a thesis about the OLB and is generally accepted to be the 'official authority' on the subject.

He is now professor of Frisian language and literature at the University of Groningen.

http://www.rug.nl/staff/g.t.jensma

I studied all of his publications without prejudice, but while reading I came to the conclusion that he must be wrong.

I promise to prove this in good time, but for now here are some interesting facts.

1. With his research he did not confer a doctor's degree on history or old language, but in theology.

2. Of the 11 theses that he defended to get his promotion, only 3 are related to the subject of OLB (and they are weak). (see below)

3. Whether the OLB is (partly) a genuine source or not was not one of his research questions, the focus was on who could have made it up and why.

4. At a public discussion on the occasion of his promotion, none of the speakers agreed with his conclusion that François Haverschmidt must have been the genius behind OLB. (see below)

ad 2 (original see attached scan)

Three theses from Jensma's doctorate, related to OLB (translated by me):

2) François Haverschmidt was the genius behind OLB.

3) It is remarkable, incredible and a scientific omission that even in the most scientific literature on the OLB the literary structure of the book was only sideways addressed.

4) It is not unthinkable that Verwijs and Haverschmidt have corrected Ottema's edition and translation of the OLB.

ad 4

Source: Leeuwarder Courant, friday 10 december 2004

Dutch title of article: "Van het Oera Linda-boek, de Friese kip en de zeespiegel"

Translation of relevant fragment (by me):

"Although the speakers without exception praised Jensma's work, he had not been able to convince any of them of his truth that François Haverschmidt is the main author of the OLB."

Original fragment in Dutch:

"Hoewel de sprekers zonder uitzondering vol lof waren over het werk van Jensma, had hij niemand kunnen overtuigen van zijn waarheid dat François Haverschmidt de belangrijkste auteur van het Oera Linda-boek is."

[Otharus]

a critical review (in 1876) of the OLB by a J. Beckering Vinckers completely burnt the OLB down to sinders.

Some quotes from J. Beckering Vinckers' (1876) 'critical review' (my translation).

Title:

"The falseness of the Oera Linda-Bôk, as proven by the the gibberish in which it was written"

"Gibberish, no better than Negro-English; gibberish, that makes the OLB a mark of infamy in the collection of most illustrous remains of old-frisian language."

"Another example of a clownish anachronism. But why do I say 'another anachronism', - the whole OLB is one single colossal anachronism from beginning to end, which for example is revealed in its long train of words, that only slowly emerged in the French and Dutch language in the Middle ages as degenerated Latin. Behold a mess, susceptible for expansion."

"I have reached my goal; I aimed at ridiculing the language of the OLB."

"But that some Frisian scholars in the year of our Lord 1876 ... are still so ignorant of the grammar of precious literary remains of Frisian antiquity, that they accept a repulsive linguistic botch job like the OLB, after long term study, to be a true remains of overold Frisian, that they indeed, declare the barbaric gibberish in which it was written to be more old and pure than the flawless language of the Oldfrisian certificates, that is indeed an utterly deplorable phenomenon."

DISCUSSION

One of the worst misconceptions about the OLB is, that the language should be studied as being old-Frisian, for it is as much old-Swedish, old-German, old-English and old-Dutch (which is actually old-Westfrisian...).

Original quotes in Dutch:

"De onechtheid van het Oera Linda-Bôk, aangetoond uit de wartaal waarin het geschreven is"

"een wartaal, geen haar beter dan Neger-Engelsch; een wartaal, die het O.-L.-B. maakt tot een schandvlek in de rij der hoogst gewigtige overblijfselen van O.friesche taal."

"Dit is dus weer een potsierlijk anachronisme. Doch wat praat ik van weer een anachronisme, - het geheele O.-L.-B. is van 't begin tot het einde één enkel kolossaal anachronisme, dat zich onder anderen ook openbaart in dien langen sleep van woorden, welken we eerst in de middeleeuwen langzamerhand door verbastering van 't Latijn in den mond van Franschman of Nederlander in de wereld zien komen. Zie hier een zootje, dat voor veel vermeerdering vatbaar is."

"Het doel dat ik mij voorstelde is bereikt; ik heb de taal van het Oera-Linda-Boek belagchelijk willen maken."

"Maar dat Friesche geleerden in den jare onzes Heeren 1876 ... nog zulke vreemdelingen in de grammatica van de kostbare letterkundige overblijfsels der Friesche oudheid zijn, dat zij een afschuwelijk taalkundig knoeiwerk als het Oera-Linda-boek, na langdurige studie, voor een echt gedenkstuk van overoud Friesch hebben aangezien, ja, de barbaarsche wartaal waarin het is geschreven voor ouder en zuiverder verklaren dan de zoo zuivere taal der Oudfriesche oorkonden, dat is inderdaad een zeer betreurenswaardig verschijnsel."

Edited October 15, 2010 by Otharus