[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

[Abramelin]

The thing is though, Abramelin, that the Biblical Chronology taken from the King James Bible (1611) is from the Masoretic Text which is in line with the Jewish Calendar and would have been the prevalent chronology adhered to by Christians in the 19th Century AD. So why calculate a date from any of the other texts which didn't have the majority support?

cormac

Maybe I should have said "Frisian" Christians instead of Christians in general?

And did they (or the Dutch) use that King James Bible?

I dare to doubt that; we Dutch and most certainly the Frisians were stubborn enough to concoct our own translation, lol.

Cormac, if we cannot find a Biblical source for the 2194 BC date for the Flood, Otharus may be right.

Instead of nitpicking on my contributions, you should try to find out for yourself where that date came from or how they might have arrived at that date.

To stress my point: if you do not come up with some reasonable explanation, then Otharus has a point to his advantage by saying the date in the Frisian almanacs may have been inspired by an 'unknown ancient Frisian manuscript'.

[Abramelin]

The Statenvertaling (Dutch for States Translation) or Statenbijbel (Dutch for States Bible) is the first Bible translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages to the Dutch language, ordered by the government of the Protestant Dutch Republic first published in 1637.

-

In 1626 the States-General accepted the request from the Synod and the translation started. It was completed in 1635 and authorized by the States-General in 1637. From then until 1657 half-a-million copies were printed. This translation remained authoritative in Protestant churches well into the 20th century.

The source material for the Old Testament of the Statenvertaling was the Masoretic Text. The New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus.

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

.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

Maybe I should have said "Frisian" Christians instead of Christians in general?

And did they (or the Dutch) use that King James Bible?

I dare to doubt that; we Dutch and most certainly the Frisians were stubborn enough to concoct our own translation, lol.

Cormac, if we cannot find a Biblical source for the 2194 BC date for the Flood, Otharus may be right.

Instead of nitpicking on my contributions, you should try to find out for yourself where that date came from or how they might have arrived at that date.

To stress my point: if you do not come up with some reasonable explanation, then Otharus has a point to his advantage by saying the date in the Frisian almanacs may have been inspired by an 'unknown ancient Frisian manuscript'.

The closest thing you're likely to find using the KJV, which as I said is based on the Masoretic Text and tied to the Jewish Calendar, is 2104 BC. A discrepancy of 90 years. And attempting to use Halley's Comet doesn't help, as its period of revolution around the sun is never consistent. Giving Otharus the benefit of a doubt, if he's right then we can never prove it and it doesn't help the matter any in supporting the OLB as one would be using an unknown, possibly no longer extant text to support a more recent one (OLB) which uses a specific date which is not otherwise substantiated.

cormac

[Knul]

Here you find the necessary information: http://nl.wikipedia....Statenvertaling, including the names of the translators of the OLD Testament. Here is the register of the first edition: http://www.bijbelsdi...page=5&layout=1

Here you find the dates: http://www.opbouwonline.nl/artikel.php?id=9174.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Knul

[Abramelin]

Here you find the necessary information: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statenvertaling, including the names of the translators of the OLD Testament. Here is the register of the first edition: http://www.bijbelsdigitaal.nl/view.php?bible=sv1637&page=5&layout=1

I already posted about the "Statenvertaling", just before you did.

Now show me how they came to 2194 BC.

You can't, and you want ME to do the calculations to prove YOUR point.

Based on that same Statenvertaling, most people arrived at around 2345 BC as the date for the Flood.

[Abramelin]

The closest thing you're likely to find using the KJV, which as I said is based on the Masoretic Text and tied to the Jewish Calendar, is 2104 BC. A discrepancy of 90 years. And attempting to use Halley's Comet doesn't help, as its period of revolution around the sun is never consistent. Giving Otharus the benefit of a doubt, if he's right then we can never prove it and it doesn't help the matter any in supporting the OLB as one would be using an unknown, possibly no longer extant text to support a more recent one (OLB) which uses a specific date which is not otherwise substantiated.

cormac

But we Dutch never used the KJV.

We used (for centuries) the "Statenvertaling" (the States Translation).

It appears to me you force yourself to disagree with me just for the sake of disagreeing or something, lol.

I showed you all calculations, but none of you showed scheise.

Prove me wrong with YOUR calculations.

Please.

And what I posted about Halley's comet is based on what ENGLISH scientists and believers in the Bible (Halley, Whiston) claimed to be true.

I can't help it, ok?

.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

I did my best to show how the Frisians might have come to the date of 2194 BC for Noah's Flood.

Now I want one of you to show me I was wrong, and I want to see calculations.

If you can't manage that, please shut up.

Try it out for yourselves, or don't, and then tell me I was right.

[Abramelin]

All I read is that I was wrong.

OK, maybe I am, but none of you posted any alternative calculations to show me I was wrong.

For now I am sticking with what I found out.

I think I cracked the OLB date of 2194 BC.

[cormac mac airt]

But we Dutch never used the KJV.

The Dutch weren't the only people living in the Netherlands in the early 1600's. The Puritans, who moved there from England and eventually made it to America did as well, in Leiden as early as 1608 IIRC. The Geneva Bible they used, much like the King James Bible, was also based on the Masoretic Text.

It appears to me you force yourself to disagree with me just for the sake of disagreeing or something, lol.

Nope, I see what to me are pretty obvious holes in your speculations.

I showed you all calculations, but none of you showed scheise.

Chronology based on King James Bible, based on Masoretic text and inline with Jewish Calendar: 3760 - 1656 = 2104 BC.

Other, strictly Masoretic calculations, Oldest: 4192 - 1656 = 2536 BC

........................................Midline: 3849 - 1656 = 2193 BC Benito Arias Montano

See the following:

Antwerp Polyglot

........................................Youngest: 3616 - 1656 = 1960 BC

Earliest date for Septuagint/Alexandrinus: 5592 - 2262 = 3330 BC

Latest date for Septuagint/Alexandrinus: 5199 - 2262 = 2937 BC

Other possibilities can be found here:

Dating Creation

The work of Benito Arias Montano may quite possibly be the answer to your question Abramelin.

cormac

[Abramelin]

You have not a clue about what I am trying to convey.

I am a 'thief', I think like one, I know how to concoct a hoax.

You, Cormac, you think that when you stick to facts, then you must be right.

But, apparently, you have not the slightest idea about how thiefs and liars and pickpockets think.

*I*, I hate to admit, I know how they think.

++++

EDIT:

I tell you: I AM able to create the missing parts of the OLB.

But if I post now what I already created, everyone will know it was me who created it.

So I will wait for a decade or more, after all of you forgot about me and this thread.

You have no idea: I maybe have a somewhat 'problematic' online character, but I can wait... and wait for a very, very long time.

.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

You have not a clue about what I am trying to convey.

I am a 'thief', I think like one, I know how to concoct a hoax.

You, Cormac, you think that when you stick to facts, then you must be right.

But, apparently, you have not the slightest idea about how thiefs and liars and pickpockets think.

*I*, I hate to admit, I know how they think.

++++

EDIT:

I tell you: I AM able to create the missing parts of the OLB.

But if I post now what I already created, everyone will know it was me who created it.

So I will wait for a decade or more, after all of you forgot about me and this thread.

You have no idea: I maybe have a somewhat 'problematic' online character, but I can wait... waut for a very long time.

.

Good for you, but you asked for a possibility of how they got the date and I found you one. And I didn't have to think like a thief, liar or pickpoctet to find it either. Sorry it wasn't to your liking.

cormac

[Abramelin]

Good for you, but you asked for a possibility of how they got the date and I found you one. And I didn't have to think like a thief, liar or pickpoctet to find it either. Sorry it wasn't to your liking.

cormac

No, you didn't post anything nearly convincing, you just wanted to correct me, using nothing but 'peanuts'.

But it's ok, I can take all that.

Wait a decade, and I will amaze you all.

Whatever you all will hear about the OLB in the future, that will be my legacy.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

Maybe I should have said "Frisian" Christians instead of Christians in general?

And did they (or the Dutch) use that King James Bible?

I dare to doubt that; we Dutch and most certainly the Frisians were stubborn enough to concoct our own translation, lol.

Cormac, if we cannot find a Biblical source for the 2194 BC date for the Flood, Otharus may be right.

Instead of nitpicking on my contributions, you should try to find out for yourself where that date came from or how they might have arrived at that date.

To stress my point: if you do not come up with some reasonable explanation, then Otharus has a point to his advantage by saying the date in the Frisian almanacs may have been inspired by an 'unknown ancient Frisian manuscript'.

Yes, I agree, for no particular reason than this is logical.

Say we read an article, here, and it has mention of the date 2193/4BC, we immediately check the sources, if that person has sources the OLB book, we dismiss that article...yes?

Like the one I posted about the Proto-Encke comet and Atlantis, which you found Abe, I had already added it but you may have missed it - never mind, point being - once we declare the article has been influenced by the OLB story date of 2193/4BC it dismisses the credibility of that date being able to be substantiated elsewhere.

Only when that date remains OUT of the context of any OLB related articles can it be looked at as being a true date imo.

I'm not exactly aware of the Friesche Almanak details concerning the "Statenvertaling" but will do my best to understand what Knul is saying better but it appears to me, that this date has been recorded in it and all fine and good if the OLB is a hoax and that date is taken from that Almanac, but indeed, why has the Almanac that date in the first place?

[The Puzzler]

All I read is that I was wrong.

OK, maybe I am, but none of you posted any alternative calculations to show me I was wrong.

For now I am sticking with what I found out.

I think I cracked the OLB date of 2194 BC.

Mate, can you just run it by me so I get your view right.

I have been doing so many calulations, dreaming of celestial calculations, I have lost track of what you might have cracked, just make it easy for me, ta.

[The Puzzler]

........................................Midline: 3849 - 1656 = 2193 BC Benito Arias Montano

See the following:

The work of Benito Arias Montano may quite possibly be the answer to your question Abramelin.

cormac

I think possibly yes. I found the link that says Montano dates Creation at 3849BC then minus the 1656 years from Creation = 2193BC. In the fall/autumn.

I read up on Montano also and his translations seems a possible candidate for someone of an OLB inspired mind to support his rebel ideas.

On his return he retired to a hermitage at Aracena whence he was summoned by Philip II (1568) to supervise a new polyglot edition of the Bible, with the collaboration of many learned men.

León de Castro, professor of Oriental languages at Salamanca, to whose translation of the Vulgate Arias(Montano) had opposed the original Hebrew text, denounced Arias to the Roman, and later to the Spanish Inquisition for having altered the Biblical text, making too liberal use of the rabbinical writings, in disregard of the decree of the Council of Trent concerning the authenticity of the Vulgate, and confirming the Jews in their beliefs by his Chaldaic paraphrases. After several journeys to Rome Arias was freed of the charges (1580) and returned to his hermitage, refusing the episcopal honours offered him by the king. He accepted, however, the post of a royal chaplain, but was only induced to leave his retirement for the purpose of superintending the Escorial library and of teaching Oriental languages.

He led the life of an ascetic, dividing his time between prayer and study. In addition to the works written in connection with the polyglot, the most celebrated of which is Antiquitatum judaicarum libri IX (Leyden, 1593), Arias left many commentaries on various books of the Bible; also: Humanae salutis monumenta (Antwerp, 1571); a Latin translation of the Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, and other works on widely varying subjects. He was also celebrated as a poet, his verses being chiefly of a religious nature.

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

Now, either the OLB date is garnered from the Creation date of Montano, possibly used in the Friesche Almanak, or he himself has recorded this Creation date for a reason also and the Flood did occur at 2193/4BC.

But of course, there is many dates thrown around for Creation.....

But I feel in Antwerp, Belgium the creators of the OLB may have had access and known more about this so called Calvinist sympathiser than we know and his Bible version may be the one they chose to reconstruct the OLB from...

But why has he chosen that Creation date is what I'll be looking at next.

Edited January 6, 2012 by The Puzzler

[The Puzzler]

Here's Montano's 3849BC Creation year, at the exact point on the Horizon of the Vernal Equinox 21st March, from Spain, since he was from that area, it may be a local date known.

All the Gods are there, just the main ones they knew about too, except Saturn.

The Sun and Jupiter are in Aries, the very powerful Ram. The Zodiac does start in Aries too, this could be a start point.

The nose of Taurus has just ushered in his Bull Age and the Pleiades sit right near the Sun. Interesting.

Edited January 6, 2012 by The Puzzler

[cormac mac airt]

I think possibly yes. I found the link that says Montano dates Creation at 3849BC then minus the 1656 years from Creation = 2193BC. In the fall/autumn.

I read up on Montano also and his translations seems a possible candidate for someone of an OLB inspired mind to support his rebel ideas.

On his return he retired to a hermitage at Aracena whence he was summoned by Philip II (1568) to supervise a new polyglot edition of the Bible, with the collaboration of many learned men.

León de Castro, professor of Oriental languages at Salamanca, to whose translation of the Vulgate Arias(Montano) had opposed the original Hebrew text, denounced Arias to the Roman, and later to the Spanish Inquisition for having altered the Biblical text, making too liberal use of the rabbinical writings, in disregard of the decree of the Council of Trent concerning the authenticity of the Vulgate, and confirming the Jews in their beliefs by his Chaldaic paraphrases. After several journeys to Rome Arias was freed of the charges (1580) and returned to his hermitage, refusing the episcopal honours offered him by the king. He accepted, however, the post of a royal chaplain, but was only induced to leave his retirement for the purpose of superintending the Escorial library and of teaching Oriental languages.

He led the life of an ascetic, dividing his time between prayer and study. In addition to the works written in connection with the polyglot, the most celebrated of which is Antiquitatum judaicarum libri IX (Leyden, 1593), Arias left many commentaries on various books of the Bible; also: Humanae salutis monumenta (Antwerp, 1571); a Latin translation of the Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, and other works on widely varying subjects. He was also celebrated as a poet, his verses being chiefly of a religious nature.

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

Now, either the OLB date is garnered from the Creation date of Montano or he himself has recorded this Creation date for a reason also and the Flood did occur at 2193/4BC.

But of course, there is many dates thrown around for Creation.....

But I feel in Antwerp, Belgium the creators of the OLB may have had access and known more about this so called Calvinist sympathiser than we know and his Bible version may be the one they chose to reconstruct the OLB from...

But why has he chosen that Creation date is what I'll be looking at next.

That's a good question IMO but it would appear that Montano's Bible, written in the late 1500's definitely predates the Friesche Almanak by a few centuries. At least as I understand it. So it's definitely possible that a calculation based on Montano's date for Creation was the origin for the OLB's date. And in the late 1500's and early 1600's in that region were the Geneva Bible, possible early copies of the KJV and Montano's Bible. All of which are based on the Masoretic Text. Finding HOW he came to the date for Creation that he did may prove difficult as there doesn't appear to be much about him specifically. At least not that I've found so far.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

That's a good question IMO but it would appear that Montano's Bible, written in the late 1500's definitely predates the Friesche Almanak by a few centuries. At least as I understand it. So it's definitely possible that a calculation based on Montano's date for Creation was the origin for the OLB's date. And in the late 1500's and early 1600's in that region were the Geneva Bible, possible early copies of the KJV and Montano's Bible. All of which are based on the Masoretic Text. Finding HOW he came to the date for Creation that he did may prove difficult as there doesn't appear to be much about him specifically. At least not that I've found so far.

cormac

Yes, see my post above the Cybersky one, I slightly edited it, with a point about his version being used for the Friesche Almanak date, which then was used for the OLB.

Not exactly sure of the logistics of this though, seems plausible considering we're talking Antwerp and the Belgium area as well as Spain.

Like Abe too, I'm curious as to WHY he came up with these dates and whether he used a more Western European dating, one that had been known about prior to him.

Edited January 6, 2012 by The Puzzler

[cormac mac airt]

Yes, see my post above the Cybersky one, I slightly edited it, with a point about his version being used for the Friesche Almanak date, which then was used for the OLB.

Not exactly sure of the logistics of this though, seems plausible considering we're talking Antwerp and the Belgium area as well as Spain.

Like Abe too, I'm curious as to WHY he came up with these dates and whether he used a more Western European dating, one that had been known about prior to him.

Yeah, I noticed your edit. Wish I could get this laptop to save pictures from Stellarium, it's a whole lot more helpful than CyberSky.

cormac

[Knul]

That's a good question IMO but it would appear that Montano's Bible, written in the late 1500's definitely predates the Friesche Almanak by a few centuries. At least as I understand it. So it's definitely possible that a calculation based on Montano's date for Creation was the origin for the OLB's date. And in the late 1500's and early 1600's in that region were the Geneva Bible, possible early copies of the KJV and Montano's Bible. All of which are based on the Masoretic Text. Finding HOW he came to the date for Creation that he did may prove difficult as there doesn't appear to be much about him specifically. At least not that I've found so far.

cormac

I think you are close to the truth. However, the translators of the Statenvertaling (1617-1637) have used the oldest sources directly, such as the Masoretic text and did not copy the well-known Montano Bible, which relies on the same source. When the Friesche Almanak got published in 1834 till 1854 it was more than logical, that one used the data of the Statenvertaling as this translation was proclaimed to be the official translation of the protestant churches. The same happened with the Groninger Almanak and the Geldersche Almanak. It was also logical, that J.H. Halbertsma, who was a protestant minister, used the data of the official Statenvertaling instead of the Hinlepre Almanak of 1679, which he published in his Hulde to Gysbert Japicx. The Hinlepre Almanak relied on Jewish data, the Statenvertaling on Christian data.

[Abramelin]

I think I found out whose theory the dates in the Frisian almanacs were based on, and it was staring me right in the face all the time.

Year of almanac: 1839

Wereldschepping, naar onze tijdrekening: 5788

(Creation of the world according to our time reckoning: 5788)

1839-5788= -3949 >> 3950 BC

Ussher calculated that the creation occurred in 4004 BC; using the King James Bible, this creation date gives the date of the Flood as 2348 BC. Although the Ussher chronology remains highly influential, other theologians have given different dates for the Creation; for example, Joseph Scaliger claimed it to have occurred in 3950 BC, while Petavius calculated the date as 3982 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

Another important factor was the calendar reform. The Julian year, introduced by Julius Caesar

himself, was well out of step with the real year by this time, and in 1582 Pope Gregory XIII

initiated the new or Gregorian year which corrected the slippage of the calendar. Everyone,

whether for or against, knew about this. Ussher was against the calendar reform, and his

opposition is one reason why England did not adopt the Gregorian year until 1752. To this must

be added the critical work on ancient chronologies done by Scaliger in his De emendatione

temporum (1583), by the Jesuit Petavius (1627), as well as by others. Chronological questions

were a common subject of learned discussion, and men of letters could be expected to know

something about them: Sir Thomas Browner for example, wrote attractively about them in his

Pseudoxia Epidemica.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/AboutScience/chronology_barr.pdf

[Abramelin]

Wouldn't it be a great joke if the writers of the OLB had borrowed the 2194 BC date from a Frisian almanac, a date which the Frisian almanacs had probably borrowed from this Scaliger?

Well, read here why:

(...)

The old national myths of medieval origin were given new life and new

fantastic combinations were made. Speculations about the origin of various

nations found nourishment primarily in two myths: (1) the wanderings of

Noah’s descendants after the Flood and (2) in the legends of Troy, and the

fate of the heroes of that war, which lived on in the minds of men throughout

the Middle Ages, all the time overlaid with new fanciful additions. These

were the great archetypal stories with which imaginative historians always

tried to connect annals of their own peoples.39

In England, historians contended that the English Kingdom was founded

by Brutus the Trojan, who was reputed to be the great-grandson of Aeneas

and to have founded New Troy (later London).40 In France, in the 15th and

16th centuries, there flourished a myth about Francus, who was said to have

been a son of Hector.41 Francus had escaped from Troy when the city fell

(in the same way as Aeneas did) and gone to central Europe, where he became

the ancestor of the Frankish nation.42 In another French tradition,43

the French are descended directly from Japhet, via Gomer. Hence, the history

of the French begins immediately after the Flood and, since there is no other

people existing who can claim such a lineage, the French are the only true

successors of the authority with which God invested Adam (Grafton 1993,

85). German historians maintained that the Germans descended from Noah’s

son Japhet. The first born of the latter was Ascenas, also called Tuiscon,

who became the first German king. He started his reign 1787 years after

the foundation of the world, 131 years after the Flood. He was succeeded

by a series of kings, the first ten of whom were named, in chronological order:

Mannus, Ingaevon, Isthaevon, Hermion, Marsus, Gambrivius, Svevus,

Vandalus, Teuto and Alemannus. There was also a Dutch nationalistic myth,

presented to the literary world by Johannes Goropius Becanus (d. 1572), who

in his famous Origines Antwerpianae (1569) contended that history began in

Brabant. The ancient Cimmerians lived there and their language—Dutch—

was the oldest language in the world. In Sweden the “Gothic” historiographers

went back to Jordanes’s description of Scandinavia as an officina gentium

and a vagina nationum, from which victorious nations have repeatedly

sallied forth. Johannes Magnus was the author who, on the basis of earlier

contributions, laid quite a new fundation for Gothic historiography. In his

Historia de omnibus Gothorum Sueonumque regibus (1554), he gave Sweden a

complete list of kings from Magog, the grandson of Noah, to his own days.

Sweden was the oldest realm on earth.44

There were always scholars who would not tolerate such nonsense. George

Buchanan scrutinized and ridiculed fabulous stories of this kind in his Rerum

Scoticarum Historia.45 Another outstanding representative of a critical attitude

was the brilliant Joseph Justus Scaliger, who ruthlessly attacked the

champions of such ideas, trying to show that they were nothing but figments

of the imagination based on forgeries and fantasies (Grafton 1993, 82 ff.). At

the dawn of the Enlightenment, most of these myths collapsed under the

weight of their own absurdity.46

http://www.cems.ox.ac.uk/documents/helander.pdf

.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

LOL, Van Gorp, I know now why you use that name:

He was born Jan Gerartsen van Gorp in the town of Gorp, situated in the municipality of Hilvarenbeek. As was the fashion of the time, Gerartsen adopted a Latinized surname based on the name of his birthplace, Goropius being rendered from "Van Gorp"' and Becanus referring to "Hilvarenbeek."

Linguistic theories

Goropius theorized that Antwerpian Brabantic, spoken in the region between the Scheldt and Meuse Rivers, was the original language spoken in Paradise. Goropius believed that the most ancient language on Earth would be the simplest language, and that the simplest language would contain mostly short words. Since the number of short words is higher in Brabantic than it is in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, Goropius reasoned that it was the older language.

A corollary of this theory was that all languages derived ultimately from Brabantic. The Latin word for oak, quercus, Goropius derived from werd-cou (keeps out cold); the Hebrew name Noah he derived from nood (need). Goropius also believed that Adam and Eve were Brabantic names (from Hath-Dam, or dam against hate"; and Eu-Vat, barrel from which people originated, or from Eet-Vat, oath-barrel, respectively). Another corollary was the placement of the Garden of Eden itself in the Brabant region. In the book known as Hieroglyphica, Goropius also proved to his own satisfaction that Egyptian hieroglyphics represented Brabantic.

There is an allusion to this theory in Ben Jonson's The Alchemist, where one character speaks of planks written on by Adam "in High Dutch: which proves it was the original tongue". Samuel Butler's satirical Hudibras contains the couplet "Whether the devil tempted her [Eve]/By a High Dutch interpreter".

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Goropius_Becanus

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

.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Sorry Van Gorp, I must have my eyes checked, lol: I see you already mentioned Becanus a dozen of times or so.

But from what I read on the internet I learned that Becanus' ideas about language were quite ridiculous.

"Never have I read greater nonsense," the scholar Joseph Scaliger wrote of Goropius' etymologies.

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Johannes_Goropius_Becanus

+++++++++++++++

In the Origines Becanus aims to show that Antwerp was founded by the descendants of Noah who had conserved the primeval language. The work contains ten books which offer an overview of the migrations of peoples through times: Atuatica, Gigantomachia, Niloscopium, Cronia, Indoscythica, Saxonica, Gotodanica, Amazonica, Venetica, Hyperborea. Combining erudition with ingeniosity and wit, Becanus traces the history of mankind, basing himself upon Biblical writings and historiographical works. Writing in a nationalistic spirit and defending the cause of ‘modern’ national languages, Becanus attacked the myth of the primacy of the Hebrew language and defended the idea of the antiquity of the Dutch (Flemish) language, which he also calls ‘Cimbrian’. His claim that Dutch is the oldest language is based on the hypothesis that the tribe of Gomer was not present at the construction of the tower of Babel, and thus escaped the confusion of languages. The Cimbrian language, of which Flemish is the direct continuation, conserved the properties of the (perfect) original language: the one-to-one correspondence between name (nomen) and thing (res), transparency between form and meaning, and shortness (monsyllabicity). Becanus’s thesis rests on an etymological analysis of proper names (toponyms and anthroponyms), which are segmented in such a way as to resemble somehow words of the Dutch language. Becanus thus can show that Dutch is the simplest language (containing short words which occur in the more complex lexemes of other languages), and is therefore the oldest language (as the etymological anlysis of the name of the language shows: Diets or Duyts = d’outs/de outs = de oudste ‘the oldest’). Some of these (fanciful) etymologies were reproduced in 1580 as a lexicon appended to an edition with commentary of Tacitus’s Germania. The absence of formal and semantic constraints in the etymological analysis (and the synthetical recompounding into words), and the fact that Becanus allows for several valid etymological for a single word, constitute the main weak points of Becanus’s endeavour, which was severely criticized by Justus Lipsius and Josephus Justus Scaliger. Becanus’s practice was immortalized under the nickname ‘goropiser’ which Leibniz gave to it (Nouveaux Essais, I.3.2.), although it must be pointed out that some of his etymologies were adopted by Dutch lexicographers, such as Kiliaan.

http://anet.ua.ac.be/wiki/hortus/Becanus

.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

I think I found out whose theory the dates in the Frisian almanacs were based on, and it was staring me right in the face all the time.

Year of almanac: 1839

Wereldschepping, naar onze tijdrekening: 5788

(Creation of the world according to our time reckoning: 5788)

1839-5788= -3949 >> 3950 BC

~SNIP~

Setting aside the fact that this is not the date we were talking about before (3850 BC), then where did they get the extra 100/101 years since we know the number given between the Creation and the Flood is 1656, per the Masoretic Text?

cormac