[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

[Alewyn]

After 12 years the Earth made the 3 maidens, Lyda, Finda and Frya out of some heat. That could be Sun. She made them when it was warm.

Then Wralda, who creates beginnings/origins breathed on the last one, that is Frya so that men might be bound to him, he put his good spirit into her that her people might follow his ways.

There is a reference to the Juul being round like the Sun. The whole object imo is seen as the Sun. The Juul is a Sun symbol imo, the burning wheel of time, a combination of the age of man/old man which became World (Wralda) who made the Origin and the Beginning that created Time.

More than that though, it's the circuit of the Sun, the rondeel, the circuit of time, the circle of the returning Solstice, of the new Sun for the next year, heralding in the soon return of Spring, the wheel it would have seemed to made as it whirled through the sky bringing us seasons and time, before the realisation the Sun didn't move at all. Wralda is not the Sun, he is just a part of the bigger circle you could say.

I am afraid that the English translation (Sandbach?) you quote is wrong. Herewith the correct meanings:

OLB:

“After et twilifte iolferste barde hia thria mangerta.

Lida warth vt gliande,

Finda warth vt heta and

Fria vt warme stof.”

Dutch Translation (Ottema)

“Na het twaalfde Juulfeest bragt zij voort drie maagden:

Lyda uit gloeijende stof,

Finda uit heete stof, en

Frya uit warme stof.”

English (My Translation)

“After the twelfth Yule festival she (earth) gave birth to three daughters:

Lida out of glowing,

Finda out of hot, and

Fria out of warm dust.”

As you can see, the 3 daughters were not created out of heat (energy) but out of dust (solid matter – energised to various levels). Your attempted connection of these three to the sun therefore does not hold water (or even steam, lol)

Let us now look at the OLB’s religion and its subsequent influence on other religions:

In trying to understand the “primitive” religion of the OLB, one must first try to define, what I would like to call, the 4 basic concepts:

1. Wralda (pronounced Ra-alda). This could mean “the most ancient of ancients” or the “most ancient father”. This was their name for “God” or the “Creator”.

2. Wralda i.e. the “world”. This means the “Creation” or everything in the Universe, whether one can sense it or not, in other words all physical and metaphysical or spiritual things.

3. Wralda’s Spirit i.e. the spirit or being of God / Wralda. My understanding here is that this is obviously the very being of Wralda–God, but is quite separately identifiable from Wralda–World.

4. Irtha i.e. the Earth or rather, planet earth, being an object created by Wralda. “The Earth” is not synonymous with “The World”, but merely part of it

As you can thus see, the OLB does not say all beings return to “The Earth” (when they die) as you claim, but rather, they return to the Creator

In the OLB we see that they use the same word for “God” (Creator) as for “World” (Creation). At a first glance, this sounds like pantheism:

“Pantheism is the view that God is everything and everyone and that everyone and everything is God. Pantheism is similar to polytheism (the belief in many gods), but goes beyond polytheism to teach that everything is God. A tree is God, a rock is God, an animal is God, the sky is God, the sun is God, you are God, etc. Pantheism is the supposition behind many cults and other religions (e.g., Hinduism and Buddhism to an extent, the various unity and unification cults, and “mother nature” worshippers).”

http://www.gotquestions.org/pantheism.html

In pantheism it is quite acceptable to pray to all kinds of objects or creatures as they are all supposed to be part of God. Clearly Frya’s folk were very much against worshipping idols, so pantheism is out. Let us then look at panentheism which seems to be a bit closer:

“Panentheism is essentially a combination of theism (God is the Supreme Being) and pantheism (God is everything). While pantheism says that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. Panentheism holds that God is the “supreme effect” of the universe. God is everything in the universe, but God also is greater than the universe. Events and changes in the universe effect and change God. As the universe grows and learns, God also increases in knowledge and being.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/panentheism.html

The OLB clearly states that Wralda is all-knowing and unchangeable:

“Men may learn many things, but Wralda knows everything. Men may unlock many things, but to Wralda everything is open. Mankind are male and female, but Wralda created both. Mankind love and hate, but Wralda alone is just. Therefore Wralda alone is good, and there is no good without him. In the progress of time all creation alters and changes, but goodness alone is unalterable; and since Wralda is good, he cannot change.”

From the above quote, it is thus clear that the OLB’s religion does not fit in with panentheism either, as Wralda does not “grow and learn”.

It would thus seem that, although we have the problem with “Wralda – God” and “Wralda – World” the OLB’s religion comes very close to monotheism as we find it in say, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Earlier I mentioned the “primitive” religion of the OLB. This is merely to indicate that this was some form of proto-monotheism. My research indicated that it is most likely that Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism all developed out of and mutated from the OLB’s religion under different external influences as these prevailed in different parts and at different times in the world. Judaism, though, would appear to be the closest related to “Fryatheism”. This could be ascribe to the exclusivity of Judaism (“entrusted with the Word of God”).

Christianity developed out of Judaism with the coming of Christ. Islam, in turn, not only developed from both Judaism and Christianity but also contain remnants of Pantheism (see Jinn).

Even in Christianity today we find widely divergent and, very often, incompatible believe systems e.g. Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Charismatic, Orthodox, Coptic and many others. Biblical Christianity seems to be the only religion that has not mutated over centuries and millennia, but rather came about in a very short space of time as the result of a single event. To a lesser extent, one can argue that the same can be said of Islam

In modern times we also had Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science, etc. mutating from Christianity, very often preserving not much more than the name.

It would thus seem (to me, at least) that most religions have their oldest origins in the OLB’s religion.

[The Puzzler]

I am afraid that the English translation (Sandbach?) you quote is wrong. Herewith the correct meanings:

OLB:

“After et twilifte iolferste barde hia thria mangerta.

Lida warth vt gliande,

Finda warth vt heta and

Fria vt warme stof.”

Dutch Translation (Ottema)

“Na het twaalfde Juulfeest bragt zij voort drie maagden:

Lyda uit gloeijende stof,

Finda uit heete stof, en

Frya uit warme stof.”

English (My Translation)

“After the twelfth Yule festival she (earth) gave birth to three daughters:

Lida out of glowing,

Finda out of hot, and

Fria out of warm dust.”

As you can see, the 3 daughters were not created out of heat (energy) but out of dust (solid matter – energised to various levels). Your attempted connection of these three to the sun therefore does not hold water (or even steam, lol)

Let us now look at the OLB’s religion and its subsequent influence on other religions:

In trying to understand the “primitive” religion of the OLB, one must first try to define, what I would like to call, the 4 basic concepts:

1. Wralda (pronounced Ra-alda). This could mean “the most ancient of ancients” or the “most ancient father”. This was their name for “God” or the “Creator”.

2. Wralda i.e. the “world”. This means the “Creation” or everything in the Universe, whether one can sense it or not, in other words all physical and metaphysical or spiritual things.

3. Wralda’s Spirit i.e. the spirit or being of God / Wralda. My understanding here is that this is obviously the very being of Wralda–God, but is quite separately identifiable from Wralda–World.

4. Irtha i.e. the Earth or rather, planet earth, being an object created by Wralda. “The Earth” is not synonymous with “The World”, but merely part of it

As you can thus see, the OLB does not say all beings return to “The Earth” (when they die) as you claim, but rather, they return to the Creator

.

The part about the heat was a guess and I'm not trying to connect them to being born of the Sun, lol.

It says from 3 warm sources so I thought the Earth may have had heat to create them.

You still don't get it.

Wralda is not the Sun, he is part of the creation of the whole cycle of the Sun's movement - the Juul as a complete symbol. They celebrate the return of the Sun at Yule, the rebirth of it's renewal towards the new season of warmth as it takes them to Spring. This is what Juul is, a feast to celebrate the return of the Sun, the firey wheel etc. The circuit it makes, the circle, the Juul is the Creation, the Origin and the Beginning - the beginning, origin of a new year.

You obviously didn't get the part where I clearly distinguish the World from the Earth. The creator is the World and we return to it. The World that is, not Irtha or Gaia, Earth.

The World could, in your eyes therefore, contain Heaven, so my version is not even contradicting your idea.

You just don't want to accept it, you think I have some vendetta against your religion or something.

I think your 'dust' is absurd, the word is STUFF. Stof. Frya out of warm stuff.

Lyda waerth ut glyande,

Finda waerth ut hêta aend

Frya ut warme stof.

Glowing, Hot and Warm Stuff. They all sound like they mean a warmth to me. Still, I have no ulterior motive to connect them to the sun's warmth except that it's most logical.

After the 12th Juulfest no less, when the warmth comes.

Edited April 10, 2011 by The Puzzler

[Bezum]

As a dutchy I would rather agree with Alewyn's translation: dust. I don't know where the word "stuff" in English derives from, but there's definitely no Dutch word that comes close. I also think dust sounds way more logical in context. Why would they use such a vague word as "stuff"?

[Alewyn]

The part about the heat was a guess and I'm not trying to connect them to being born of the Sun, lol.

It says from 3 warm sources so I thought the Earth may have had heat to create them.

You still don't get it.

Wralda is not the Sun, he is part of the creation of the whole cycle of the Sun's movement - the Juul as a complete symbol. They celebrate the return of the Sun at Yule, the rebirth of it's renewal towards the new season of warmth as it takes them to Spring. This is what Juul is, a feast to celebrate the return of the Sun, the firey wheel etc. The circuit it makes, the circle, the Juul is the Creation, the Origin and the Beginning - the beginning, origin of a new year.

You obviously didn't get the part where I clearly distinguish the World from the Earth. The creator is the World and we return to it. The World that is, not Irtha or Gaia, Earth.

The World could, in your eyes therefore, contain Heaven, so my version is not even contradicting your idea.

You just don't want to accept it, you think I have some vendetta against your religion or something.

I think your 'dust' is absurd, the word is STUFF. Stof. Frya out of warm stuff.

Lyda waerth ut glyande,

Finda waerth ut hêta aend

Frya ut warme stof.

Glowing, Hot and Warm Stuff. They all sound like they mean a warmth to me. Still, I have no ulterior motive to connect them to the sun's warmth except that it's most logical.

After the 12th Juulfest no less, when the warmth comes.

Just get off your high horse. I was not attacking you in any way nor was I advancing any religuous agenda.

So, grow up.

[Alewyn]

As a dutchy I would rather agree with Alewyn's translation: dust. I don't know where the word "stuff" in English derives from, but there's definitely no Dutch word that comes close. I also think dust sounds way more logical in context. Why would they use such a vague word as "stuff"?

Thank you, Bezum.

[Bezum]

Coming to think about it, I might have said something wrong. The saying "stof tot nadenken" (English: food for thought), might literally mean "stuff to think about". I never really actually thought about the meaning of that "stof" until now. Although I still think "dust" is more logical in this context.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Bezum

[Alewyn]

Coming to think about it, I might have said something wrong. The saying "stof tot nadenken" (English: food for thought), might literally mean "stuff to think about". I never really actually thought about the meaning of that "stof" until now. Although I still think "dust" is more logical in this context.

Very true. In Afrikaans we also say "Stof tot nadenke" (without the last "n") meaning exactly the same as the Dutch saying.

Another sayng is "om iemand in die stof te laat byt" meaning "to let someone bite the dust"

[The Puzzler]

Just get off your high horse. I was not attacking you in any way nor was I advancing any religuous agenda.

So, grow up.

Why don't you.

I think you high horsed me first.

It's stuff. Old French - estoffe

stuff (n.)

early 14c., "quilted material worn under chain mail," from O.Fr. estoffe "quilted material, furniture, provisions" (Fr. étoffe), from estoffer "to equip or stock," probably from O.H.G. stopfon "to plug, stuff," or from a related Frankish word (see stop).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=stuff

Equip, stock, provisions = stuff

Frya was made out of warm stuff - Frya was made out of warm things/provisions/equiptment.

Edited April 10, 2011 by The Puzzler

[The Puzzler]

As a dutchy I would rather agree with Alewyn's translation: dust. I don't know where the word "stuff" in English derives from, but there's definitely no Dutch word that comes close. I also think dust sounds way more logical in context. Why would they use such a vague word as "stuff"?

Hello Bezum,

Old Frisian is closest to English. You shouldn't be reading it looking for a Dutch context in it.

Stuff is a common word, we use it all the time, where's my stuff? Think about stuff = food for thought, or a favourite - Get Stuffed! you are right and were right to rethink it.

I can guarantee you, without even being on any high horse, that the word is stuff.

[The Puzzler]

High horse, I like that phrase, I use it alot myself.

The Trojan Horse was pretty high, maybe it itself was a message for the Trojans - they always seemed like they might be on high horses, thinking they were pretty good. A high horse took them off their high horse didn't it..?

[Flashbangwollap]

High horse, I like that phrase, I use it alot myself.

The Trojan Horse was pretty high, maybe it itself was a message for the Trojans - they always seemed like they might be on high horses, thinking they were pretty good. A high horse took them off their high horse didn't it..?

You are not wrong Puzz, and oddly enough I think you have found another metaphor for the Trojan Horse excellent. There you go Abe you were right after all.

Stuff Stuff, n. [OF. estoffe, F. ['e]toffe; of uncertain

origin, perhaps of Teutonic origin and akin to E. stop, v.t.

Cf. Stuff, v. t.]

1. Material which is to be worked up in any process of

manufacture.

[1913 Webster]

For the stuff they had was sufficient for all the

work to make it, and too much. --Ex. xxxvi.

7.

[1913 Webster]

Ambitions should be made of sterner stuff. --Shak.

[1913 Webster]

The workman on his stuff his skill doth show,

And yet the stuff gives not the man his skill. --Sir

J. Davies.

[1913 Webster]

2. The fundamental material of which anything is made up;

elemental part; essence.

[1913 Webster]

Yet do I hold it very stuff o' the conscience

To do no contrived murder. --Shak.

[1913 Webster]

3. Woven material not made into garments; fabric of any kind;

specifically, any one of various fabrics of wool or

worsted; sometimes, worsted fiber.

[1913 Webster]

What stuff wilt have a kirtle of? --Shak.

[1913 Webster]

It [the arras] was of stuff and silk mixed, though,

superior kinds were of silk exclusively. --F. G.

Lee.

[1913 Webster]

4. Furniture; goods; domestic vessels or utensils.

[1913 Webster]

He took away locks, and gave away the king's stuff.

--Hayward.

[1913 Webster]

5. A medicine or mixture; a potion. --Shak.

[1913 Webster]

6. Refuse or worthless matter; hence, also, foolish or

irrational language; nonsense; trash.

[1913 Webster]

Anger would indite

Such woeful stuff as I or Shadwell write. --Dryden.

[1913 Webster]

7. (Naut.) A melted mass of turpentine, tallow, etc., with

which the masts, sides, and bottom of a ship are smeared

for lubrication. --Ham. Nav.

Encyc.

[1913 Webster]

8. Paper stock ground ready for use.

[1913 Webster]

Note: When partly ground, called half stuff. --Knight.

[1913 Webster]

Clear stuff. under Clear.

Small stuff all kinds of small cordage. --Ham.

Nav. Encyc.

Stuff gown, distinctive garb of a junior barrister;

hence, a junior barrister himself. See Silk gown, Silk.

[1913 Webster]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Stuff Stuff, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Stuffed; p. pr. & vb. n.

Stuffing.] [OE. stoffen; cf. OF. estoffer, F. ['e]toffer,

to put stuff in, to stuff, to line, also, OF. estouffer to

stifle, F. ['e]touffer; both perhaps of Teutonic origin, and

akin to E. stop. Cf. Stop, v. t., Stuff, n.]

1. To fill by crowding something into; to cram with

something; to load to excess; as, to stuff a bedtick.

[1913 Webster]

Sometimes this crook drew hazel bought adown,

And stuffed her apron wide with nuts so brown.

--Gay.

[1913 Webster]

Lest the gods, for sin,

Should with a swelling dropsy stuff thy skin.

--Dryden.

[1913 Webster]

2. To thrust or crowd; to press; to pack.

[1913 Webster]

Put roses into a glass with a narrow mouth, stuffing

them close together . . . and they retain smell and

color. --Bacon.

[1913 Webster]

3. To fill by being pressed or packed into.

[1913 Webster]

With inward arms the dire machine they load,

And iron bowels stuff the dark abode. --Dryden.

[1913 Webster]

4. (Cookery) To fill with a seasoning composition of bread,

meat, condiments, etc.; as, to stuff a turkey.

[1913 Webster]

5. To obstruct, as any of the organs; to affect with some

obstruction in the organs of sense or respiration.

[1913 Webster]

I'm stuffed, cousin; I can not smell. --Shak.

[1913 Webster]

6. To fill the skin of, for the purpose of preserving as a

specimen; -- said of birds or other animals.

[1913 Webster]

7. To form or fashion by packing with the necessary material.

[1913 Webster]

An Eastern king put a judge to death for an

iniquitous sentence, and ordered his hide to be

stuffed into a cushion, and placed upon the

tribunal. --Swift.

[1913 Webster]

8. To crowd with facts; to cram the mind of; sometimes, to

crowd or fill with false or idle tales or fancies.

[1913 Webster]

9. To put fraudulent votes into (a ballot box). [u. S.]

[1913 Webster]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Stuff Stuff, v. i.

To feed gluttonously; to cram.

[1913 Webster]

Taught harmless man to cram and stuff. --Swift.

[1913 Webster]

[Alewyn]

Hello Bezum,

Old Frisian is closest to English. You shouldn't be reading it looking for a Dutch context in it.

Stuff is a common word, we use it all the time, where's my stuff? Think about stuff = food for thought, or a favourite - Get Stuffed! you are right and were right to rethink it.

I can guarantee you, without even being on any high horse, that the word is stuff.

Afrikaans is as close to Old Frisian as Engish, if not closer.

Now, without a Dutch or Afrikaans background, you try to translate the OLB from the original into English. I have already translated about 60 percent and I can assure you, I get much more mileage out of my Afrikaans dictionaries than out of my English dictionaries and Thesaurus.

Nevertheless, whether the word is "Stuff" or "Things" or "Dust", it is still "matter" and not "energy" or "heat" as I said earlier.

[Bezum]

Hello Bezum,

Old Frisian is closest to English. You shouldn't be reading it looking for a Dutch context in it.

Stuff is a common word, we use it all the time, where's my stuff? Think about stuff = food for thought, or a favourite - Get Stuffed! you are right and were right to rethink it.

I can guarantee you, without even being on any high horse, that the word is stuff.

I could agree on your translation of "stof". Few remarks however, OLB is not written in Old-Frisian (which indeed

comes close to Old-English, not modern English). Main reason why it is considered a fraud. As most certainly mentioned before, it is a mix between quasi-old Frisian and modern language. So I guess your argument on that stuff (see what I did there) doesn't count. I think I can definitely come further in translating this text by using Dutch, than by using English.

Another remark, which doesn't support your theory about "stuff", is that, as mentioned before, Old-Frisian (in which OLB isn't written) is similar to Old-English. Your word "stuff" apparently originates from the 14th century. If you consider OLB to not be a fraud, than it's publish date in the 13th century, was in a time the word "stuff" possibly didn't exist yet.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Bezum

[Abramelin]

As a dutchy I would rather agree with Alewyn's translation: dust. I don't know where the word "stuff" in English derives from, but there's definitely no Dutch word that comes close. I also think dust sounds way more logical in context. Why would they use such a vague word as "stuff"?

Your post is the first and only post I read today, and the word that comes closest (in pronounciation) to STUFF is STOF, which is Dutch for dust... but both have a different etymology.

And dust/stof is stuff that is everywhere.

And this is the correct etymology for 'stof':

M. Philippa e.a. (2003-2009) Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands

stof 1 zn. ‘fijne, stuivende deeltjes’

Mnl. stof met verbogen vorm stove(-), in de vorm stoef [1240; Bern.] (met -ō- o.i.v. de verbogen naamvallen), in Dat stof dat waiet vor den wint ‘stof dat door de wind opgejaagd wordt’ [1285; VMNW].

Mnd. stof, stōf; < pgm. *stuba-. Daarnaast staan met dezelfde betekenis de varianten pgm. *stauba-, waaruit ohd. stoub (nhd. Staub); en pgm. *stubja-, -ju-, waaruit onl. stubbi (mnl. stubbe), mnd. (ge)stubbe, ohd. stuppi en got. stubjus.

Afgeleid van de wortel van → stuiven.

It's derived from "stuiven", or to 'whirl/blow up fine particles', or something like that.

http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/stof2

The meanings of 'stuiven' in English:

http://www.mijnwoordenboek.nl/vertaal/NL/EN/stuiven

.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

I could agree on your translation of "stof". Few remarks however, OLB is not written in Old-Frisian (which indeed

comes close to Old-English, not modern English). Main reason why it is considered a fraud. As most certainly mentioned before, it is a mix between quasi-old Frisian and modern language. So I guess your argument on that stuff (see what I did there) doesn't count. I think I can definitely come further in translating this text by using Dutch, than by using English.

Another remark, which doesn't support your theory about "stuff", is that, as mentioned before, Old-Frisian (in which OLB isn't written) is similar to Old-English. Your word "stuff" apparently originates from the 14th century. If you consider OLB to not be a fraud, than it's publish date in the 13th century, was in a time the word "stuff" possibly didn't exist yet.

On stuff: Germanic root highly probable – note similarity to modern Danish term ‘stof’ – lit. ‘stuff’ or ‘matter’

http://podictionary.com/stuff-podictionary-276/

Matter, dust, stuff - they are all the same in the end really.

I thought Alewyn was saying it wasn't stuff, but dust - really it's stuff AND dust. I didn't know also that dust was stuff in Dutch, but the real word is probably 'matter'. Dust/stuff/matter.

Blazing, hot and moderate dust. Doesn't really sound right to me but of we just simply go for Blazing, hot and moderate matter, it sounds much better I reckon.

Obviously the word is stuff but I recognise one of the meanings is dust as it is another word for matter.

If stuff wasn't around I don't think the Dutch version of stuff/stof was around either, so either way, same.

Stuff may refer to: items, things, or matter.

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

[The Puzzler]

Afrikaans is as close to Old Frisian as Engish, if not closer.

Now, without a Dutch or Afrikaans background, you try to translate the OLB from the original into English. I have already translated about 60 percent and I can assure you, I get much more mileage out of my Afrikaans dictionaries than out of my English dictionaries and Thesaurus.

Nevertheless, whether the word is "Stuff" or "Things" or "Dust", it is still "matter" and not "energy" or "heat" as I said earlier.

I agree, dust, stuff, matter - all the same. Revised my thinking, see Post #4292

I never said it was heat, I said it was stuff.

**OK< I found where I phrased 'heat' - After 12 years the Earth made the 3 maidens, Lyda, Finda and Frya out of some heat. That could be Sun. She made them when it was warm.

Out of some heat, I really meant heated stuff once you broke it down. When the Earth got fertile and warm she gave birth is how I meant it.

I meant the terms for the 3 women - blazing, hot and moderate (stof). Where is the blazing, hot and moderate stuff/matter/dust coming from?

I also think we have a serious problem of not understanding each other properly.

-----------------

physics /phys·ics/ (fiz´iks) the study of the laws and phenomena of nature, especially of forces and general properties of matter and energy

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Etymology+of+Physics

Edited April 11, 2011 by The Puzzler

[The Puzzler]

You are not wrong Puzz, and oddly enough I think you have found another metaphor for the Trojan Horse excellent. There you go Abe you were right after all.

Stuff Stuff, n. [OF. estoffe, F. ['e]toffe; of uncertain

origin, perhaps of Teutonic origin and akin to E. stop, v.t.

Cf. Stuff, v. t.]

1. Material which is to be worked up in any process of

manufacture.

[1913 Webster]

Thanks Flash.

Who knew stuff meant could mean so much stuff??!

[The Puzzler]

Abe gave another etymology for stof/dust, here's one in English: DUST

dust (n.)

O.E. dust, from P.Gmc. *dunstaz (cf. O.H.G. tunst "storm, breath," Ger. Dunst "mist, vapor," Dan. dyst "milldust," Du. duist), from PIE *dheu- (1) "dust, smoke, vapor" (cf. Skt. dhu- "shake," L. fumus "smoke"). Meaning "that to which living matter decays" was in O.E., hence, figuratively, "mortal life." The verb is from c.1200, "to rise as dust;" later it came to mean both "to sprinkle with dust" (1590s) and "to rid of dust" (1560s). Sense of "to kill" is U.S. slang first recorded 1938 (cf. bite the dust under bite).

So English Dust does not really mean English Stuff.

Stuff might appear to mean dust but the 2 words have completely different etymologies.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=dust

Note: Dust, breath - like God - he made Adam from dust and breathed life into him. THIS context. I don't think Adam was made from stuff. They are different.

Edited April 11, 2011 by The Puzzler

[The Puzzler]

You can't make the word into a word that it's not - if I've learnt one thing fromt his thread, it's about words. It's true, I don't speak any other language than English like you all seem to so am disadvantaged on not understanding some of the basics of translations.

However, I will point out that the words in the OLB, if going to be transliterated or translated need to be properly.

You cannot imo put dust for stof. It's like putting wizard for tsjoender. The word is realy enchanter. Just because it seems to be the same word, it might not be, each language has different context's for things, as we have seen all through this thread.

If anything, the word for stof is stuffing, which came from stopper, to stop a hole with rushes/hay, to stop/stuff it in. It's not dust or matter. It's stuff.

They were made of blazing, hot and warm stof/stuff/padding. Like a soft doll, stuffed with ...stuffing.

Edited April 11, 2011 by The Puzzler

[Otharus]

Fragment of the letter from Cornelis Over de Linden to Eelco Verwijs of 7 October 1867, introducing the manuscript, now known as OLB. (My improvised translation, from "De Gemaskerde God", page 237; from now on I'll refer to this book as DGG.)

Dear sir!

When in my childhood I visited my grandparents in Enkhuizen, and my grandfather (he was a master carpenter) spoke to me in confidence, he used to say: "You speak fancy now, but you must remember that we are not of Hollandic, but of pure Frisian blood, when you're older I'll explain all that, because your father doesn't care about it." The old man died before he could tell me about it. Some 18 years ago [in 1848], visiting my family, my aunt gave me two manuscripts, that she had not been allowed to give me when her husband was still alive, although my grandfather had demanded it. The biggest is thicker than a Bible; the beginning is Latin and most is old-Hollandic. The smallest has to be some variety of old-Frisian and is written in a type of letters that look to me as capital Roman letters. The big one is of use to me, the small one not. (...)"

He continues writing how a friend suggested to ask a specialist for his opinion about the small manuscript.

I have highlighted the two (i.m.o.) significant parts of this letter.

First.

His grandfather must have known what the manuscript was about and he must have loved it, while his son, the father of Cornelis did not care about it. This means that he will have tried to get his son interested, telling stories about it, maybe reading from it. In other words, apart from the passing over of the physical tradition (the manuscript), there was also an oral tradition; stories being told from older to younger generations. Those stories may not always have explicitly referred to the manuscript! So Cornelis may have known parts of the content of the OLB, or certain words from it, without knowing that it came from the OLB. (This is important for something I'll write about later.)

Second.

His uncle had forbidden his wife (Cornelis' aunt) to give the manuscript to him. Why? Did he like it so much himself? Did he think it would kindle Cornelis' megalomania or otherwise not be good for him to know too much about his family's past? If it's a 19th century copy, was he the one who made it (and maybe sold the original)? Who knows, but anyway, I sense something suspicious about this uncle.

Another fragment from the hand of Cornelis Over de Linden (1873 or 1874) about how he had received the book (free translation, DGG p.238-239).

Again, note the fragments about the grandfather loving it, while the father was not interested, and about the uncle who didn't want Cornelis to have it.

Once when I visited my mother and some other family, I was at my aunts at a moment when her second husband Koop Meylhof was not at home. I think it was in the year 1847 or -8. We were in the garden that I loved because I had such good memories of when my grandparents lived there. A pear tree carried three ripe pears that I asked for, saying that since grandfathers death, I had not tasted fruits from this garden. She agreed and said: "Now that you mention your grandfather, I have something for you that I had to keep until you had grown up. Hendrik..." (Hendrik Reuvers was the name of her first husband) "... didn't want me to give it to you, but Koops doesn't know about it, therefore I should give it to you now." I expected something like a watch, but she came back with an old book. Then she said: "This is, as grandfather said, an old Frisian manuscript from our ancestors. He didn't want to give it to your father, because he wasn't interested, therefore I had to keep it for you."

I put it under my coat and could hardly hide my disappointment. "You don't seem very happy with it", she said. "But if you knew how much your grandfather loved it, you'd be more happy. I only heard about it, but I believe they are Frisian papers of nobility. Etc." To please her, I showed some more gratitude, and promised that I would learn to read it and that I would tell her what it said. (She died in the year 49. So if she would not had given it to me, Koops would have laid his hands upon it - or one of her children, that are named Reuvers.) One might as well have given me Hebrew, I couldn't read any of it and when I told my wife that they were papers of nobility, she thought it was a joke.

Another fragment by Cornelis, addressed to his grandson Cornelis and family, dated 1873 or 1874 (DGG, p.240-241).

Analysing the events concerning the book, I believe it was all meant to happen like it did. If I had not gone to visit my mother in Enkhuizen, I would not have seen my aunt Aafje; had the pears not been ripe when I was in the garden with her, I would not have spoken about grandfather, and she would not have thought of the book. The next year she died, and since no-one except her knew the book, it would have disappeared.

If I could have spent the night at my cousins, I would not have met Siderius and the book would not have gotten translated.

If mister Eelco Verwijs had been more generous, I would have had a translation as a manuscript, for I would not have had it printed.

Possibly, you'll probably say, nothing would have been lost. But I am superstitious enough, to think, that God wanted to have this history revealed, and therefore I also believe, that He did it to cast out the false history, and replace it with the true one.

That this will not happen during my lifetime, I also believe, but you are still young, so it is possible, that you will live to see part or all of this happen.

Some people are already found, who consider the book to be authentic. One day intelligent people will rise, who will challenge the priests and prove, that they have destroyed our history and our monuments, with the purpose of making us believe that our ancestors were like animals; that we owe nothing to them [our ancestors], but everything to the Jews, Greeks and other deceitful people.

Jensma’s theory, in short, is that Cornelis was a blatant liar and deceiver (as were Verwijs and Haverschmidt).

The writings of Cornelis don’t sound like lies to me. In fact, I find it very hard to believe that this man would have lied to his children and grandchildren about a matter this important.

Also, if Jensma’s suggestion that Over de Linden would sometimes drink too much is true, it’s most unlikely that, were he involved in the creation of the book, he would never have spoken about his secret to anyone, while being drunk. (Drunk people and children are honest, they said in my youth.)

But there’s much more information that is in strong conflict with Jensma’s theory that Over de Linden was one of the hoaxers.

In 1876 a schoolteacher from Den Helder, Cornelis Wijs, remembered an incident that happened in 1831. He was working on a ship called Nehalennia, on which the father of Cornelis, Jan Over de Linden was also working. The latter had in joyous moods often taken pride in the fact that he descended from the oldest family of the world, and in the same context he would also ridicule nobility [dutch: “adel“].

Another two teachers that went to school with Over de Linden’s oldest son Cornelis [around 1848], remembered a similar incident. As a 14 year old schoolboy, this Cornelis II (1833-1868) would sometimes have fights with a fellow student from a noble family, a certain ‘baron’ Eichstorff, who took pride in his high descent. Cornelis would have said: “Your German noble descent means nothing to me; we are of much older nobility than you, and Frisian.” And: “Father says it [that we are of noble descent], and he knows it from a book with such strange letters, that we can‘t even read it; Father can only read bits of it.” The two fellow students who remembered this incident, as well as two other people from Den Helder made an official ‘sealed‘ statement [at a notary], declaring that between 1848 and 1850, they had known of the existence of the manuscript (without having seen it themselves). (free translation, DGG, p.241-243)

A similar statement by a sea-officer named W.M. Visser who had made a note in his diary on 23 December 1854. On that day Cornelis Over de Linden had told him about the book, that “not only was written in a strange language, but also with such strange letters, that he could not read it.” (DGG, p.243 and footnote)

After mentioning several other, similar statements that confirm the existence in the 1840-s of old, important Over de Linden family documents, Jensma’s conclusion is that “... there surely must have existed some sort of family document. But because the OLB [...] must have been written in the 1850-s or early 1860-s [see below], it is impossible that this concerns the OLB” (DGG, p.243).

And: “About a possible, no longer existing ‘Frisian’ manuscript [that must have existed in the family] one can only speculate. If there was one, it was not saved, but destroyed by Cornelis and ‘replaced’ by the OLB” (DGG, p.244). Behold a nice example of Jensma’s logic and way of reasoning.

Note:

This dating of the OLB between the 1850-s to early 1860-s is mostly based on the discovery of the Swiss pole-houses in 1854, the digging of the Suez channel in 1859, and the publication of a book “Minnebrieven”, an early-feministic novel, in 1861 by Multatuli (Eduard Douwes Dekkers), because he used a character (a daughter and milk-maid) called “Thugater” (milk-maid in Sanskrit), as daughter in OLB is spelled TOGHATERA. (For Jensma “irrefutable” proof that OLB is inspired by Minnebrieven.) Note also that Haverschmidt, according to Jensma’s hypothesis the mastermind behind the OLB, was only 25 years old in 1860!

To be continued...

Edited April 11, 2011 by Otharus

[Otharus]

In trying to understand the “primitive” religion of the OLB, one must first try to define, what I would like to call, the 4 basic concepts:

1. Wralda (pronounced Ra-alda). This could mean “the most ancient of ancients” or the “most ancient father”. This was their name for “God” or the “Creator”.

Interesting post Alewyn. I can't dive very deep in it now, but have a few comments.

I like "dust" better than the "matter" I used earlier. Note that the Dutch "stof" can both mean "dust" and "fabric". With ambiguities like this, a footnote in the translation might be good.

The W or VV (double-you) is pronounced like the OE in "boer" or the English OO as in "proof" or "poor" or OU in "you" (I can't hear the difference); WR-ALDA, therefore is pronounced as (Dutch/ Afrikaans:) OER-ALDA, or (English:) OOR-ALDA, or (German:) UR-ALDA.

Have you also considered Monism?

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

Edited April 11, 2011 by Otharus

[The Puzzler]

Interesting post Alewyn. I can't dive very deep in it now, but have a few comments.

I like "dust" better than the "matter" I used earlier. Note that the Dutch "stof" can both mean "dust" and "fabric". With ambiguities like this, a footnote in the translation might be good.

Why change it anyway is what I want to know???

This is why the book is so hard to understand, each language is putting in words that mean things in THEIR language.

It's not dust or matter.

It's stuff. Stof might MEAN dust but it does not translate to it. Isn't that Lego etymology???

Abe gave it in Dutch, maybe so I couldn't read it or something, because he knew when I did I could see the 2 words were different...Abe? lol

cormac, someone....anyone, can you clarify this please????

Edited April 12, 2011 by The Puzzler

[Abramelin]

Why change it anyway is what I want to know???

This is why the book is so hard to understand, each language is putting in words that mean things in THEIR language.

It's not dust or matter.

It's stuff. Stof might MEAN dust but it does not translate to it. Isn't that Lego etymology???

Abe gave it in Dutch, maybe so I couldn't read it or something, because he knew when I did I could see the 2 words were different...Abe? lol

cormac, someone....anyone, can you clarify this please????

Again (from post 4288):

M. Philippa e.a. (2003-2009) Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands

stof 1 zn. fijne, stuivende deeltjes

Mnl. stof met verbogen vorm stove(-), in de vorm stoef [1240; Bern.] (met -ō- o.i.v. de verbogen naamvallen), in Dat stof dat waiet vor den wint stof dat door de wind opgejaagd wordt [1285; VMNW].

Mnd. stof, stōf; < pgm. *stuba-. Daarnaast staan met dezelfde betekenis de varianten pgm. *stauba-, waaruit ohd. stoub (nhd. Staub); en pgm. *stubja-, -ju-, waaruit onl. stubbi (mnl. stubbe), mnd. (ge)stubbe, ohd. stuppi en got. stubjus.

Afgeleid van de wortel van → stuiven.

It's derived from "stuiven", or to 'whirl/blow up fine particles', or something like that

http://www.etymologiebank.nl/trefwoord/stof2

The meanings of 'stuiven' in English:

http://www.mijnwoordenboek.nl/vertaal/NL/EN/stuiven

+++++++++++

EDIT:

An example of "stuiven" :

.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

Why change it anyway is what I want to know???

This is why the book is so hard to understand, each language is putting in words that mean things in THEIR language.

It's not dust or matter.

It's stuff. Stof might MEAN dust but it does not translate to it. Isn't that Lego etymology???

Abe gave it in Dutch, maybe so I couldn't read it or something, because he knew when I did I could see the 2 words were different...Abe? lol

cormac, someone....anyone, can you clarify this please????

Sorry Puzzler, I'm afraid I can't help you. Lost interest in this thread quite some time ago. At 280+ pages from what I can tell, no one is any closer to a concensus of the OLB's authenticity and how it relates to actual history, nor how it relates (if at all) to the OP on page 1.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

If it's not authentically ancient - Maybe the Grandfather wrote it. To me, he seems to have the 'push' for what it contains...

You speak fancy now - we are not Hollandic - pure Frisian blood - grandfather had Demanded it.

Dear sir!

When in my childhood I visited my grandparents in Enkhuizen, and my grandfather (he was a master carpenter) spoke to me in confidence, he used to say: "You speak fancy now, but you must remember that we are not of Hollandic, but of pure Frisian blood, when you're older I'll explain all that, because your father doesn't care about it." The old man died before he could tell me about it. Some 18 years ago [in 1848], visiting my family, my aunt gave me two manuscripts, that she had not been allowed to give me when her husband was still alive, although my grandfather had demanded it.

He may have had enough language abilities and knew the differences in the language enough - the comment You speak fancy Now, seems to say to me, he knows the earlier unDutch version of his language too.

Pure Frisian blood - obviously Grandfather believed this and rammed it home.

Maybe Hendrik could see the trouble they would brew from it so his advice was to not give it to Cornelis, as Cornelis had a streak of Frisian patriotism in him too - that was also the reason he was given the manuscript too, Grandfather had demanded it, why? Because Cornelis showed interest in being a pure Frisian, whereas his father had not.

I still think much of the content is true either way.

Edited April 12, 2011 by The Puzzler