Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood


Riaan

Recommended Posts

The 2193 BC date was the date of Noah's Flood, according to the 19th century Frisian Almanac.

Accept that fact, or not.

Not my problem, but I am getting tired if repeating it.

Believe what Puzzler is able to dig up, if you prefer.

I will never.

She never showed us anything the 19th century people didn't know about.

These people SPOKE Old Latin and Old Greek.

All whatever she and I are able to dig up is from the internet, and in the English translation.

THese people were a LOT more aquainted with the ancient Greek and Latin culture then Puzz can ever pretend to be.

They even published works in ancient Greek and Latin.

./

I neither believe it to be true or false nor do I care because I have know attachment to it being accurate. It is however a small pice of very large inspiration for a widespread culture that was deemed heretical. There are enough connections for it to be interesting but I equally accept the possibility of fraud. Just laying it out there to be disected.

I don't agree with that date for the flood but it was probably accepted at that time. If it is fantasy then they did it in a way that does not make it overly obvious. I also think there are often deeper truths in myths or folkore than the official accounts of history. There have always been overt aswell as covert actions. We think we invented conspiracy in this generation sometimes but it is as old as civilization imo.

So what was the older part of the OLB? Sorry if I have misunderstood, I'm a little slow sometimes.

The 2193 BC date was the date of Noah's Flood, according to the 19th century Frisian Almanac.

Accept that fact, or not.

Not my problem, but I am getting tired if repeating it.

Believe what Puzzler is able to dig up, if you prefer.

I will never.

She never showed us anything the 19th century people didn't know about.

These people SPOKE Old Latin and Old Greek.

All whatever she and I are able to dig up is from the internet, and in the English translation.

THese people were a LOT more aquainted with the ancient Greek and Latin culture then Puzz can ever pretend to be.

They even published works in ancient Greek and Latin.

./

The 2193 BC date was the date of Noah's Flood, according to the 19th century Frisian Almanac.

Accept that fact, or not.

Not my problem, but I am getting tired if repeating it.

Believe what Puzzler is able to dig up, if you prefer.

I will never.

She never showed us anything the 19th century people didn't know about.

These people SPOKE Old Latin and Old Greek.

All whatever she and I are able to dig up is from the internet, and in the English translation.

THese people were a LOT more aquainted with the ancient Greek and Latin culture then Puzz can ever pretend to be.

They even published works in ancient Greek and Latin.

./

I neither believe it to be true or false nor do I care because I have know attachment to it being accurate. It is however a small pice of very large inspiration for a widespread culture that was deemed heretical. There are enough connections for it to be interesting but I equally accept the possibility of fraud. Just laying it out there to be disected.

I don't agree with that date for the flood but it was probably accepted at that time. If it is fantasy then they did it in a way that does not make it overly obvious. I also think there are often deeper truths in myths or folkore than the official accounts of history. There have always been overt aswell as covert actions. We think we invented conspiracy in this generation sometimes but it is as old as civilization imo.

So what was the older part of the OLB? Sorry if I have misunderstood, I'm a little slow sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I neither believe it to be true or false nor do I care because I have know attachment to it being accurate. It is however a small pice of very large inspiration for a widespread culture that was deemed heretical. There are enough connections for it to be interesting but I equally accept the possibility of fraud. Just laying it out there to be disected.

I don't agree with that date for the flood but it was probably accepted at that time. If it is fantasy then they did it in a way that does not make it overly obvious. I also think there are often deeper truths in myths or folkore than the official accounts of history. There have always been overt aswell as covert actions. We think we invented conspiracy in this generation sometimes but it is as old as civilization imo.

So what was the older part of the OLB? Sorry if I have misunderstood, I'm a little slow sometimes.

I neither believe it to be true or false nor do I care because I have know attachment to it being accurate. It is however a small pice of very large inspiration for a widespread culture that was deemed heretical. There are enough connections for it to be interesting but I equally accept the possibility of fraud. Just laying it out there to be disected.

I don't agree with that date for the flood but it was probably accepted at that time. If it is fantasy then they did it in a way that does not make it overly obvious. I also think there are often deeper truths in myths or folkore than the official accounts of history. There have always been overt aswell as covert actions. We think we invented conspiracy in this generation sometimes but it is as old as civilization imo.

So what was the older part of the OLB? Sorry if I have misunderstood, I'm a little slow sometimes.

The connections to ancient Greek, Latin, Etruscan and Egyptian history were already known to these 19th century authors.

You and Puzz appear to live in a fantasy of ancient history. Word play - your version of etymology - is kid's stuff, it has nothing to do with the SCIENCE of linguistics.

Get over it, and accept that 19th century people were as much informed about these ancients as you are.

Imagine this: you are in a library, and you read all these Latin , Egyptian, and Greek manuscripts in their original language.

I will bet a dime you can't even read those manuscripts, I know Puzz can't; I know I can't.

These guys I have mentioned TAUGHT ancient Latin, Greek to their students, and hell, maybe even Egyptian.

Can YOU read ancient Latin, Greek, or Egyptian? I can't.

Some of the socalled suspects were teachers/professors of Latin/Greek/history.

Some had a lot of knowledge of book-printing, ancient scripts, ship-building, religion, and a big motive to create a hoax like the OLB.

I have posted about them, but the believers conveniently skipt past it.

--------

And those who read Alewyn's book are silent...

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The connections to ancient Greek, Latin, Etruscan and Egyptian history were already known to these 19th century authors.

You and Puzz appear to live in a fantasy of ancient history. Word play - your version of etymology - is kid's stuff, it has nothing to do with the SCIENCE of linguistics.

Get over it, and accept that 19th century people were as much informed about these ancients as you are.

Imagine this: you are in a library, and you read all these Latin , Egyptian, and Greek manuscripts in their original language.

I will bet a dime you can't even read those manuscripts, I know Puzz can't; I know I can't.

These guys I have mentioned TAUGHT ancient Latin, Greek to their students, and hell, maybe even Egyptian.

Can YOU read ancient Latin, Greek, or Egyptian? I can't.

Some of the socalled suspects were teachers/professors of Latin/Greek/history.

Some had a lot of knowledge of book-printing, ancient scripts, ship-building, religion, and a big motive to create a hoax like the OLB.

I have posted about them, but the believers conveniently skipt past it.

--------

And those who read Alewyn's book are silent...

.

I have no problem if you and other skeptics want to ignore the role played by the occult. Yeah, so those 18th century dudes could read ancient languages. They also probably had a lot of esoteric knowledge that they would not easily give up. The dutch have a strong connection to the rosuricians. It is however necessary to dress up mysteries in various ways. Since hearing of the OLB it has seemed like it is a good example of this. Real or fake it was a sopisticated piece that reveals more about, what I think of as the 'missing culture', than any book on the official history.

I probably have a greater chance of reading Alweyns book than learning ancient greek. I shall go and reside in fantsay land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you do is add 'proof', proof that was already known to the ones who created the OLB.

You, Puzz, you never ever posted anything that was not known to them.

All I want as proof is another 'ancient' manuscript using the same script as the OLB used.

If we must believe the OLB, the Frya empire covered all of (ancient) Europe.

And whatever you tell us, no monk will be able to whipe out all the proof of other manuscripts.

Just look at what archeologists still find in Meso America,

Believe me, these Christian Nazis did all they could to whipe out every trace of Aztec civilization.

And I guess you disbelieve the Phaistos Disk is real too, simply because you can't find one the same.

What is it that ancient writers wrote that this is a copy of anyway, nothing much it says leads me to think it's copied from anything ancient writers wrote.

Did Homer tell us Europeans settled Tyre? No, don't recall that...

Did someone say Minnos came from Denmark?? Nup

Who told them that the Phoenicians landed at Marseilles...? No one as far as I know, I do know Greeks settled it first c. 700BC so what ancient writer wrote about any Phoenicians buying it?

To me, the whole thing makes good sense and I can't see why it would not be generally true, regardless of any reasons you may have for it being made up, fantasy, some hate for Hollanders agenda, some notion of a fantastical background etc.

I'm sure you have your own answers for why Rhea Silvia was 'taken' by Mars and produced the Roman line, through Romulus.

What do you think that means? It's made up? I know, I bet you think that its as fantastical as the OLB right?

All crap, a God didn't come down and impregnate any woman called Rhea, who was a Vestal Virgin in Latium...the Aryans came down though, from Thrace into Latium and impregnated a Latium woman who was a priestess of Fasta. This child became very important and initiated change in the area towards the people of Latium taking control which in fact Rhea's father had tried to stop.

The myths substantiate the book and then the language movements substantiate the myths. Mycenaean word: a-re - Aryans of re - Mars Aries. Re. The hidden one, of course that's the Sun right? ...

There is absolutely no reason to doubt most of the history imo. We do know amber was being traded and people were travelling throughout Europe. Baltic amber from the Bronze Age is found in Egypt too.

Thanks for your posts Slim, but after Abe's replies I can see why no one much contributes to this thread and why I'm just about over it.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem if you and other skeptics want to ignore the role played by the occult. Yeah, so those 18th century dudes could read ancient languages. They also probably had a lot of esoteric knowledge that they would not easily give up. The dutch have a strong connection to the rosuricians. It is however necessary to dress up mysteries in various ways. Since hearing of the OLB it has seemed like it is a good example of this. Real or fake it was a sopisticated piece that reveals more about, what I think of as the 'missing culture', than any book on the official history.

I probably have a greater chance of reading Alweyns book than learning ancient greek. I shall go and reside in fantsay land.

I hope you read here that Alewyn's claims based on the OLB were debunked already.

Now all we are left with is debunking the OLB iteself.

I wished it was otherwise, but what I found out proved to me it was indeed nothing but an elaborate hoax.

And that was a great disappointment.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The connections to ancient Greek, Latin, Etruscan and Egyptian history were already known to these 19th century authors.

You and Puzz appear to live in a fantasy of ancient history. Word play - your version of etymology - is kid's stuff, it has nothing to do with the SCIENCE of linguistics.

Get over it, and accept that 19th century people were as much informed about these ancients as you are.

Imagine this: you are in a library, and you read all these Latin , Egyptian, and Greek manuscripts in their original language.

I will bet a dime you can't even read those manuscripts, I know Puzz can't; I know I can't.

These guys I have mentioned TAUGHT ancient Latin, Greek to their students, and hell, maybe even Egyptian.

Can YOU read ancient Latin, Greek, or Egyptian? I can't.

Some of the socalled suspects were teachers/professors of Latin/Greek/history.

Some had a lot of knowledge of book-printing, ancient scripts, ship-building, religion, and a big motive to create a hoax like the OLB.

I have posted about them, but the believers conveniently skipt past it.

--------

And those who read Alewyn's book are silent...

.

The science of linguistics is getting no where fast. When they can speak Etruscan in context then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. How convenient not to be able to quite decipher that one...

Maybe it's because they are convinced the alphabet came from Greece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abe, you go on about how it's faked by this person and that person, apparently going over a time frame of 1000 years actually faking just this book - from Okke at 10th century.

That's all fine and dandy but I see absolutely no reason to fake this information, all I see is 1000 reasons to discredit the information in it.

Following traditional Biblical chronology...the Frisian almanacs had it at that date as it followed traditional Biblical chronology...

I don't even care if it's hoaxed, the info in it seems true and correct in the terms of how it would fit into the scheme of things. What it seems to have done is actually tell us the Bible is a book of human making, book written to unmask the Holy Bible as a book of human making which it is, isn't it....so why wouldn't the book be correct? The problem is if the Bible is a book of human making it doesn't justify the millions who read it as Gods word. That is more the issue I see with it all, just like the opening says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Puzz, I tell you now, like I have told you many times before: you greatly underestimate what the people in the 19th century knew of ancient Greeks, Latins, and Egyptians.

Up to now you never ever posted anything that was not known to them.

Alewyn tried, but failed.

Show me another manuscript that uses the same script as the OLB did.

Frya's empire ruled over the whole of ancient Europe, accordig to the OLB (and most of all OLB interpretors, Alewyn).

But all we find is some manuscript from a tiny village in Friesland, from some family no one ever heard of before.

And you are just convinvced it's Christian monks who caused the whole of Frya's empire and culture and texts to be destroyed and/or hidden so no one would ever know about it later.

I never liked these monks, but you give them too much credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Puzz, I tell you now, like I have told you many times before: you greatly underestimate what the people in the 19th century knew of ancient Greeks, Latins, and Egyptians.

Up to now you never ever posted anything that was not known to them.

Alewyn tried, but failed.

Show me another manuscript that uses the same script as the OLB did.

Frya's empire ruled over the whole of ancient Europe, accordig to the OLB (and most of all OLB interpretors, Alewyn).

But all we find is some manuscript from a tiny village in Friesland, from some family no one ever heard of before.

And you are just convinvced it's Christian monks who caused the whole of Frya's empire and culture and texts to be destroyed and/or hidden so no one would ever know about it later.

I never liked these monks, but you give them too much credit.

After all this time I'm not sure, that's pretty much it.

I accept it might be a manuscript that has been written recently but contains alot of truth imo. I am unconvinced totally that it has been written for the reasons given, ie; to undermine the Bible but could be the genuine story of the actual Bible and how distorted it became by the priests.

The Jehovah's Witnesses, they started what they did because they too, accepted the word of God but did not accept the way the Catholic and Christian priests administered it, which they see as quite evil.

To be honest, I simply don't know what to make of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps some other readers picked up the following change in Abramelin,s arguments. For months he has been advocating on this site that Professor Jensma’s “Hoax Theory” is the ultimate proof that the Oera Linda Book is a hoax. Let us call this the “Jensma Theory”.

According to this theory, the reverend Haverscmidt committed the hoax in the 19th century. This theory was part of professor Jensma’s 2004 thesis for his doctorate. Jensma is also regarded in the Netherlands as the most revered authority on the OLB.

I pointed out that Jensma is wrong and that Haverscmidt “would still have been in nappies” at the time the book was supposed to have been written. Later, Otharus supported me on this one aspect.

Now Abramelin resorts to another hoax theory which totally rejects Jensma’s theory. For this discussion we can just refer to the “Rodinbook Theory”. The site he now quotes is:

http://rodinbook.nl/olbpersbericht.html (post 1697 dt. 3 November 2010)

Under the page “Van Himmelum tot Himalaya” the author of this Rodinbook Website says the following:

“Ergo, de complottheorie van Goffe Jensma (2004) mist elke grond” (The conspiracy theory of Goffe Jensma (2004) misses every point.)

Abe, can you please tell us which one of these theories do you now support? i.e. the Jensma Theory or the Rodinbook Theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst we are waiting for Abe to respond to post 1760, I would like to pose a question to Puzzler or anyone else who know classical history:

"In terms of the most accepted theory today, who were the original inhabitants of Greece - the Pelasgians / Pellasgics or the Hellenes / Hellenists?"

The relevance of this question to the OLB will become clearer later on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst we are waiting for Abe to respond to post 1760, I would like to pose a question to Puzzler or anyone else who know classical history:

"In terms of the most accepted theory today, who were the original inhabitants of Greece - the Pelasgians / Pellasgics or the Hellenes / Hellenists?"

The relevance of this question to the OLB will become clearer later on.

The Pelagasians came before the Hellenes imo but I'm sure there were other groups even before the Pelagasians.

We only know so much about the Pelagasians but some equate them with the Phillistines of the Bible. They could have come to Greece as survivors of Thera or from the east even. There is a possible connection with Pali.

Some stuff I found when researching another thread.

The Dravidian language and culture, which even today are those of the population of Southern India, seem to have spread their influence from India to the Mediterranean before the Aryan invasions. It was this civilization, some of whose linguistic vestiges - such as Georgian, Basque, Peuhl, Guanche and the dialects of Baluchistan - survive still in outlying areas, which served as a vehicle for ancient Shivaism. It appears that Sumerian, Pelasgian, Etruscan and Lydian, as well as Eteocretan, also belonged to the same linguistic family: the relationship between Sumerian, Georgian and Tamil leaves no doubt as to their origins. Moreover, the Basque language (Eskuara) and Georgian both have the same structure and, even today, have more than three hundred and sixty words in common. Again, Basque songs and dances are related to those of the Caucasian Iberians.

Herodotus (Histories. I. 57) speaks of the barbarian language used by the Pelasgians who in his time were living in Southern Italy and at the Hellespont. He considered that the Pelasgian language was closely related to Etruscan and Lydian. Saint Paul, who was shipwrecked at Malta in 69 A.D., mentions the "barbarian" (non-Aryan) language which was still spoken there. "The main provenance of the Pelasgians was ... from the far side of the Black Sea. There is some possibility that they did not arrive in Crete before the beginning of the second The Eteocretan language spoken by the inhabitants of Praisos in Crete, up to the third century B.C., was thus the remnant of the common non-Greek language which was once spoken in Greece, Crete and the other islands as well as in the south-west of Asia Minor. Inscriptions at Praisos in Greek characters have not yet been deciphered." (R. F. Willetts, Cretan Cults and Festivals, p. 133.) This was apparently a Dravidian language. It appears that modern linguists have never dreamt of using the agglutinative Dravidian languages, which are still widely spoken in the south of India, as a basis for their research into the ancient languages of the Mediterranean world.

The myth concerning the Aryan origin of civilization, which Rene Guenon termed the classic illusion, is still far from being forgotten. Dravidian languages have a common origin with Finnish-Hungarian languages (Balto-Finnish, Hungarian, Volgaic, Uralian, Samoyedic) and Altaic languages (Turkish, Mongolian and Eskimo), but it seems that the division between this great linguistic family and the Dravido-Mediterranean group during the Palaeolithic Age took place long before the formulation of Shivaism as we know it.

In the Middle East and the Mediterranean world, there was an important civilization of Asian origin, or which was at least linguistically related to Asia before the Aryan invasions. The megalithic monuments, myths and religious traditions common to India and the Mediterranean indicate moreover that this civilization was indeed the vehicle of Shivaism.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=187221&st=15

You also might enjoy the one on Golden Apples currently. After reading Black Athena it might a lot of sense that the foundations of grecian culture were afro-asiatic and only became indo-european through clever development of myths and language. Greek comes from sanskrit and phoenician aswell as Linear A or B. Other than sankrit which is probably the most distant they are afro asiatic languages. Phoenician was a massive step forward and their influence on Greece is massive.

Language or myths is not the same as genetics though and there were also great migrations from the north but imo that came after the initial establishment of the Hellenic culture. The transition was assumably bloody but the argument speaks for itself in terms of the reluctance of the aryan model of history to be reviewed. I think the paradigm is starting to swing and it should only help us understand ourselves more. Does this fit with your own research at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Abe, which hoax is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pelagasians came before the Hellenes imo but I'm sure there were other groups even before the Pelagasians.

Thanks Slimjim. I am sure most people will agree with you. This is exactly as I also understood it and how we all have been taught – the Pelasgians were the original inhabitants and the Hellenes came afterwards. This theory has been accepted and has gone unchallenged for centuries.

By now we all appreciate the fact that the authors of the OLB knew their history. The question, however, is this: Why would this “clever fraud” known as the Oera Linda Book go against all accepted theories and have it just the other way round? The OLB is very clear on this point. They claim when they (The Frisians / Frya’s People) came to Attica, they found some primitive people there who were living on the slopes (Afrikaans: “hellings”). They subsequently called them “Hellingars”. In time this term evolved into “Hellenes”.

In light of the OLB’s claim, let us consider what Herodotus had to say some 2500 years ago. In “The History of Herodotus”, Book I, p. 19 we read the following:

Afterwards he (Croesus) turned his thoughts to the alliance which he had been recommended to contract, and sought to ascertain by inquiry which was the most powerful of the Grecian states. His inquiries pointed out to him two states as pre-eminent above the rest. These were the Lacedaemonians and the Athenians, the former of Doric, the latter of Ionic blood. And indeed these two nations had held from very, early times the most distinguished place in Greece, the (one) being a Pelasgic, the other a Hellenic people, and the one having never quitted its original seats, while the other had been excessively migratory; for during the reign of Deucalion, Phthiotis was the country in which the Hellenes dwelt, but under Dorus, the son of Hellen, they moved to the tract at the base of Ossa and Olympus, which is called Histiaeotis; forced to retire from that region by the Cadmeians, they settled, under the name of Macedni, in the chain of Pindus. Hence they once more removed and came to Dryopis; and from Dryopis having entered the Peloponnese in this way, they became known as Dorians.

What the language of the Pelasgi was I cannot say with any certainty. If, however, we may form a conjecture from the tongue spoken by the Pelasgi of the present day- those, for instance, who live at Creston above the Tyrrhenians, who formerly dwelt in the district named Thessaliotis, and were neighbours of the people now called the Dorians - or those again who founded Placia and Scylace upon the Hellespont, who had previously dwelt for some time with the Athenians- or those, in short, of any other of the cities which have dropped the name but are in fact Pelasgian; if, I say, we are to form a conjecture from any of these, we must pronounce that the Pelasgi spoke a barbarous language. If this were really so, and the entire Pelasgic race spoke the same tongue, the Athenians, who were certainly Pelasgi, must have changed their language at the same time that they passed into the Hellenic body; for it is a certain fact that the people of Creston speak a language unlike any of their neighbours, and the same is true of the Placianians while the language spoken by these two people is the same; which shows that they both retain the idiom which they brought with them into the countries where they are now settled.

The Hellenic race has never, since its first origin, changed its speech. This at least seems evident to me. It was a branch of the Pelasgic, which separated from the main body, and at first was scanty in numbers and of little power; but it gradually spread and increased to a multitude of nations, chiefly by the voluntary entrance into its ranks of numerous tribes of barbarians. The Pelasgi, on the other hand, were, as I think, a barbarian race which never greatly multiplied."

Here Herodotus says that the Athenians were Pelasgic, of Ionic blood, spoke a Barbarous language and were originally “scant in numbers” when they “passed into the Hellenic body”. They were thus the latecomers. Exactly what the OLB tells us. Vladimir Ivanov Georgiev (1908 - 1986) who was a prominent Bulgarian linguist, philologist, and educational administrator claimed that the word “Pelasgic” comes from the Greek “Pelasgos” which means “Sea”. The Pelasgics were the “Sea People”. Again, exactly what these old Frisians called themselves.

The Hellenes were the predecessors of the “Dorians” (of Doric blood) and they moved around the area continuously (excessively migratory). They were the original inhabitants of Greece. From Herodotus’ account it is also very clear that there never was a “Dorian Invasion” as some historians would want us believe.

Now, if the OLB was a fraud and the authors tried to have some credibility, why would they have changed such a widely accepted “fact”? The OLB is also the only document (to my knowledge) that agrees with Herodotus on this point.

Figure19.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst we are waiting for Abe to respond to post 1760, I would like to pose a question to Puzzler or anyone else who know classical history:

"In terms of the most accepted theory today, who were the original inhabitants of Greece - the Pelasgians / Pellasgics or the Hellenes / Hellenists?"

The relevance of this question to the OLB will become clearer later on.

The Pelasgians imo were the people who came into Greece from Northern Europe via Italy imo, the people of the Mycenaean grave shafts, the Estonian Nordics/Germanic Frisians, from the flatlands, Latium is also very flat, they were all sea faring flatlanders. They lived in flat areas because most of the time that was how you then sailed, from flat areas of land, the plain of Latium, the areas of Friesland, Thessaly. They could include darker people who joined them as they were in Libya.

Pelasgus brings in fire, the Hearth, Hera and is the father of Deucalion, the flood, his name appears to me to mean second King (of the Pelasgians after Pelasgus) whom I can identify with one of Poseidon's sons, Autochthon.

Pelasgus either appears as the first man in Greece, an autochthon and prior to the flood. Deucalion's son sacrifices a baby.

To me, this people is, as I said, from the North, were in Italy, Libya and probably Spain and are part of the Etruscans, the Tyrhennians and the Thracians and Trojans. (Again, the Macedonian names match Trojan names, not Greek names).

Like the mainlanders stayed rather barbarian and the ones who had crossed to Asia Minor and became involved in all their parlava, came back in and took over.

Time goes on, the contact with Asia Minor comes back in to bite them on the bum. The Athenians, who imo, are Pelasgians who were dominated by the Eastern ways of the Aegeans, became more powerful and with them divided, the ancient Pelasgians were taken over.

The story goes Pelasgus, Deucalion (flood) - new people

Lycaon was changed into a wolf, which seems like he is of the same people who raised Romulus.

Edit: I'll read and consider how I reckon it fits with your post Alewyn.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pelasgus brings in fire, the Hearth, Hera and is the father of Deucalion, the flood, his name appears to me to mean second King (of the Pelasgians after Pelasgus) whom I can identify with one of Poseidon's sons, Autochthon.

Pelasgus either appears as the first man in Greece, an autochthon and prior to the flood. Deucalion's son sacrifices a baby.

Lycaon was changed into a wolf, which seems like he is of the same people who raised Romulus.

Edit: I'll read and consider how I reckon it fits with your post Alewyn.

What I am trying to convey is what the OLB says. The one unique feature of the OLB (in terms of ancient writings) is that it is not stooped in mythology. At least there is very little of it in the book.

I think we all agree that pretty much of the old mythology originated from actual persons and events. The problem with Greek and other mythology, however, is that it is very difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction.

Pre-history is covered with so many layers of mythology that we can hardly reconstruct the actual events. The OLB gives us the opportunity to take away these layers and expose the deep buried facts. Once we have established the OLB’s credibility, I believe much of the speculation about the old myths will fall away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am trying to convey is what the OLB says. The one unique feature of the OLB (in terms of ancient writings) is that it is not stooped in mythology. At least there is very little of it in the book.

I think we all agree that pretty much of the old mythology originated from actual persons and events. The problem with Greek and other mythology, however, is that it is very difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction.

Pre-history is covered with so many layers of mythology that we can hardly reconstruct the actual events. The OLB gives us the opportunity to take away these layers and expose the deep buried facts. Once we have established the OLB’s credibility, I believe much of the speculation about the old myths will fall away.

Yes, I agree, but I think we should be able to fit the myths into the OLB too, since the myths do hold the truth, underlying all the hogwash it sounds like.

Herodotus also says this cryptic part:

Besides these which have been here mentioned, there are many other practices whereof I shall speak hereafter, which the Greeks have borrowed from Egypt. The peculiarity, however, which they observe in their statues of Mercury they did not derive from the Egyptians, but from the Pelasgi; from them the Athenians first adopted it, and afterwards it passed from the Athenians to the other Greeks. For just at the time when the Athenians were entering into the Hellenic body, the Pelasgi came to live with them in their country, whence it was that the latter came first to be regarded as Greeks. Whoever has been initiated into the mysteries of the Cabiri will understand what I mean. The Samothracians received these mysteries from the Pelasgi, who, before they went to live in Attica, were dwellers in Samothrace, and imparted their religious ceremonies to the inhabitants. The Athenians, then, who were the first of all the Greeks to make their statues of Mercury in this way, learnt the practice from the Pelasgians; and by this people a religious account of the matter is given, which is explained in the Samothracian mysteries.

http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.2.ii.html

The Pelasgi, before they went to Attica, were dwellers in Samothrace and imparted their religious ceremonies to the inhabitants, the Samothracians - meaning the Athenians must have been in Samothrace too. Mercury to the Athenians, is more like Nike, the winged Victory. The winged ones, Nike, like Iris, who is identical to Hermes...Pan but the Pan of the Egyptians, is not Nike. The changeover occurred in Samothrace.

Just as the Athenians entered the Hellenic body, the Pelasgi came to live in their country, so it seemed they (Pelasgi) were the first...just like Slim said is what the concensus of today is but Herodotus clearly tells us they were not theh first Greeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However another account by Virgil in his Aeneid (3.163f), has Aeneas in a dream learn from his ancestral Penates that "Dardanus and Father Iasius" and the Penates themselves originally came from Hesperia which was afterward renamed as Italy. This tradition holds that Dardanus was a Tyrrhenian prince, and that his mother Electra was married to Corythus, king of Tarquinia (Aeneid 7.195-242; 8. 596 ss. ; 9. 10; Servio, ad Vergilium, Aeneidos, 9.10).

Hesperia renamed Italy. Dardanus was a Tyrrhenian prince, his mother is Electra. This would then make Electra of the Etruscans.

Thsi makes sense to me, since I think a flood that hit the Meditteranean would have caused destruction in Latium, causing them to leave and arrive in Asia Minor, through Samothrace, where Dardanus imparted the mysteries, from the Pelasgi in Italy, then moved into the area of the Troad.

This imo, can explain how the Etruscans are Trojans.

Hesperides, islands of the Hesperides - it may not even be in the Atlantic as we know it, but what would have been the western Ocean to the Greeks, the sea around Italy, the Tyrrhenian Sea, which if named after Tyr, as Heracles, can equate to Mars in Rome, as in Mars Thingus, which Mars being associated with red, could even be the Red Sea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree, but I think we should be able to fit the myths into the OLB too, since the myths do hold the truth, underlying all the hogwash it sounds like.

The Pelasgi, before they went to Attica, were dwellers in Samothrace and imparted their religious ceremonies to the inhabitants, the Samothracians - meaning the Athenians must have been in Samothrace too. Mercury to the Athenians, is more like Nike, the winged Victory. The winged ones, Nike, like Iris, who is identical to Hermes...Pan but the Pan of the Egyptians, is not Nike. The changeover occurred in Samothrace.

Just as the Athenians entered the Hellenic body, the Pelasgi came to live in their country, so it seemed they (Pelasgi) were the first...just like Slim said is what the concensus of today is but Herodotus clearly tells us they were not theh first Greeks.

The way I understand this history is roughly as follows:

According to the OLB, Nyhellenia a.k.a Minerva established Athens in ca. 1628 BC.

The Greek "Dark Ages" were from ca. 1200 BC to ca. 800 BC.(i.e. after the sacking of Troy in 1188 BC) We can only speculate as to the cause of the dark ages (Volcanic eruptions? Thera in ca. 1100 BC?) The point is that almost all the history up to 800 BC was destroyed. Even Herodotus had difficulty in reconstructing this.

Nike was erected ca 300 to 200 BC (?). When we talk about the cults on Samothrace, we are most likely refering to a period of more than a 1000 years after the Frisians established Athens. During this 1000 years+ the original Athenians came under the influence of outsiders and eventually lost most of their original identity, culture and religion. The OLB therefore preceeds the Greek Mythology and Samothrace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am trying to convey is what the OLB says. The one unique feature of the OLB (in terms of ancient writings) is that it is not stooped in mythology. At least there is very little of it in the book.

I think we all agree that pretty much of the old mythology originated from actual persons and events. The problem with Greek and other mythology, however, is that it is very difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction.

Pre-history is covered with so many layers of mythology that we can hardly reconstruct the actual events. The OLB gives us the opportunity to take away these layers and expose the deep buried facts. Once we have established the OLB’s credibility, I believe much of the speculation about the old myths will fall away.

I see what you're saying Alewyn. My knowledge of Greece is pretty small really but here are some links that may shed some more light and support what you're saying.

http://www.sleepinbuff.com/13history.pdf

It seems to me like the Pelasgians were 'sea peoples' but most likely dark skinned from Crete, Egypt or Libya originally. There is just less water to the north so to be sea peoples I think they would have come from the south.

wiki has some good information.

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

Have you ever heard that the Pelasgians called the gods 'disposers'? This always seemed a little strange to me.

"THE Cretans say", Diodorus Siculus wrote, "that the honours rendered to the gods, the sacrifices and mysteries, are of Cretan origin, and other nations took them from them. Demeter passed from the Isle of Crete into Attica, then into Sicily, and thence into Egypt, carrying with her the cultivation of corn." 1

On the other hand Herodotus, writing of the Pelasgi, says: "In early times the Pelasgi, as I know by information I got at Dodona, offered sacrifices of all kinds and prayed to the gods, but had no distinct names or appellations for them, since they had never heard of any. They called them gods (θεοὶ {Greek ðeoì}, disposers) because they had arranged all things in such a beautiful order. After a long lapse of time, the names of the gods came to Greece from Egypt, and the Pelasgi learnt them, only as yet they knew nothing of Bacchus, of whom they first heard at a much later date. " 2The comparative study of Cretan religious symbols tends to show that, like the Pelasgians, the Minoans worshipped deities of the underworld-the "hidden deities" of Egyptian religion--who were "Fates" or "Disposers", and were originally nameless. That is, they worshipped the spirits of nature and the spirits of ancestors. These symbols include pillars, the "horns of consecration", and the double axe. Withal there were sacred wells and mountains and sacred animals associated with the "Great Mother" which were represented in symbols, as is shown by the evidence of the seal impressions.

The worship of pillars seems to have been connected with the worship of trees and mountains. In Egypt it was believed by certain cults that the iron vault of heaven. was supported by two mountains. "Out of one mountain. came the sun every morning, and into the other he entered. every evening. The mountain of sunrise was called Bakhau, and the mountain of sunset Manu." 1 Another theory was that the sky rested on two pillars, and a later one, which obtained, however, before the pyramid texts; were inscribed, set forth that there were four pillars"--the pillars of Shu"--one at each cardinal point. The pillars in time were regarded as the sceptres of the gods of the four quarters. According to the teachings of the Ra sun cult, the cave-like openings which the sun entered. at evening and emerged from at morning were guarded. by lions, or the deities with lions' bodies and human heads which the Greeks called "sphinxes". The northern Egyptian lion-god was Aker.

http://landred.blogdns.com/st7/cla/moc/moc18.htm

http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/The%20Etruscan%20People%20and%20language.htm

http://www.fjkluth.com/religion.html

So maybe you are correct. It makes sense that the Hellenes were the native people of Europe possibily originating in Hel the north sea. They may have spread wide but without any high culture. With the migrations of the sea peoples from Egypt or Asia minor into Arcadia and Samothrace, it gave an opportunity for the Hellenes to learn high culture including mythology from the Pelasgoi at Samothrace as Puzz explained. An alternative to the east is that they came from the Canary isles but considering the closeness of greek myth to afro-asian that is where I would look first.

Puzz mentioned Iris I think and it's interesting that in the story of Hercules he leaves his first wife Mehgara. Sounded a little like Magyar to me. This is covered in Golden Apples. I'm thinking there is a mystery with Iris, Eris, Eros and Rostau or Tau-ros. I knwo it sounds wierd but didn't Puzz connect some frisian like langauge rustan.... something or other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you're saying Alewyn. My knowledge of Greece is pretty small really but here are some links that may shed some more light and support what you're saying.

http://www.sleepinbuff.com/13history.pdf

It seems to me like the Pelasgians were 'sea peoples' but most likely dark skinned from Crete, Egypt or Libya originally. There is just less water to the north so to be sea peoples I think they would have come from the south.

So maybe you are correct. It makes sense that the Hellenes were the native people of Europe possibily originating in Hel the north sea. They may have spread wide but without any high culture. With the migrations of the sea peoples from Egypt or Asia minor into Arcadia and Samothrace, it gave an opportunity for the Hellenes to learn high culture including mythology from the Pelasgoi at Samothrace as Puzz explained. An alternative to the east is that they came from the Canary isles but considering the closeness of greek myth to afro-asian that is where I would look first.

Actualy the point I am trying to make is that the Hellenes were the original primitive inhabitants of Greece and the Sea People (or Pelasgians) hailed from Western Europe. In the OLB the Frisians called themselves, or their sailors, the "Sea People".

After a civil war of sorts in ca 1628 BC, some of them fled the present day Netherlands and eventually settled in Attica where they founded Athens under the leadership of Minerva aka Nyhellenia. They had a sea king by the name of Jon who settled on the "Jon-his elanda" which later became known as the Ionian Islands.

This ties in with Herodotus' description of the Athenians who were Pelasgics (Sea People) of "Ionic Blood".

As I stated earlier, this happened as much as 800 to a 1000 years before the time Puzzler referred to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I understand this history is roughly as follows:

According to the OLB, Nyhellenia a.k.a Minerva established Athens in ca. 1628 BC.

The Greek "Dark Ages" were from ca. 1200 BC to ca. 800 BC.(i.e. after the sacking of Troy in 1188 BC) We can only speculate as to the cause of the dark ages (Volcanic eruptions? Thera in ca. 1100 BC?) The point is that almost all the history up to 800 BC was destroyed. Even Herodotus had difficulty in reconstructing this.

Nike was erected ca 300 to 200 BC (?). When we talk about the cults on Samothrace, we are most likely refering to a period of more than a 1000 years after the Frisians established Athens. During this 1000 years+ the original Athenians came under the influence of outsiders and eventually lost most of their original identity, culture and religion. The OLB therefore preceeds the Greek Mythology and Samothrace.

Okey dokey.

I have just read some more of your book, I had read this part but just reviewed it again. Are you saying the Phaeaceans are in the area of Friesland? Homer even talks about a beautifully decorated BEDROOM....not disagreeing, just clarifying so I can follow your line better...Scheria is the Scheldt.

Funny, you end that Chapter with Tin Mining and mention the Cornwall miners who came to South Africa, we had them come to Australia too, to work in our mines, and my own ancestor of my surname came into Australia from Cornwall as a miner, via the Civil War in America...he bought a tin mine here Australia when he arrived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okey dokey.

I have just read some more of your book, I had read this part but just reviewed it again. Are you saying the Phaeaceans are in the area of Friesland? Homer even talks about a beautifully decorated BEDROOM....not disagreeing, just clarifying so I can follow your line better...Scheria is the Scheldt.

Funny, you end that Chapter with Tin Mining and mention the Cornwall miners who came to South Africa, we had them come to Australia too, to work in our mines, and my own ancestor of my surname came into Australia from Cornwall as a miner, via the Civil War in America...he bought a tin mine here Australia when he arrived.

Spot on. The Phaeaceans were the Frisians and Calypso was the OLB's "Kalib".

The Cornwall miners were highly regarded in South Africa. My late father trained under them when he was a young learner miner. He told us many stories of the "Cousin Jacks" as he used to call them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actualy the point I am trying to make is that the Hellenes were the original primitive inhabitants of Greece and the Sea People (or Pelasgians) hailed from Western Europe. In the OLB the Frisians called themselves, or their sailors, the "Sea People".

After a civil war of sorts in ca 1628 BC, some of them fled the present day Netherlands and eventually settled in Attica where they founded Athens under the leadership of Minerva aka Nyhellenia. They had a sea king by the name of Jon who settled on the "Jon-his elanda" which later became known as the Ionian Islands.

This ties in with Herodotus' description of the Athenians who were Pelasgics (Sea People) of "Ionic Blood".

As I stated earlier, this happened as much as 800 to a 1000 years before the time Puzzler referred to.

I see but I'm not totally convinced the Pelasgics were Frisian. I am open to the possibility though. Of what ethnic stock do you consider Frisians to be? I used to consider the sea peoples to be caucasian but I'm now thinking they were the remnant of the mediterrean race that covered most of Europe at one time.

The Jon connection sounds promising.

The foundation myth which was current in the Classical period suggested that the Ionians were named after Ion, son of Xuthus, and lived in the north Peloponnesian region of Aegilaus. When the Dorians invaded the Peloponnese and expelled the Achaeans from the Argolid and Lacedaemonia, the Achaeans moved into Aegilaus (henceforth known as Achaea), and the Ionians were in turn expelled.[2] The Ionians went to Attica and mingled with the population there, before many people finally emigrated to the coast of Asia Minor, founding the historical region of Ionia.

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

Any mention of Xuthus?

Can you tell me more about Minerva/Nyhellena? I defnitely identify her with Athena and Frey though I think there is also a connection with Isis. Men nefer is a word that comes from Egypt. Phrygians have a connection to Isis and existed in some capacity from about 2,000bce to 500bce. The problem for me is that the weight of evidence for culture is not really in the west of Europe though this does not mean it didn't exist. I have tried to research cultures of Europe but there is little imo that led to the establishment of Greece from western Europe. In fact it is stronger to the south and primarily the east.

The other thing is that there were many groups residing in Anatolia that descended from the Hittites such as the Carians. These are possibly closer to Ionians than people from western Europe. However, if a culture learnt to navigate the seas they could have a very wide influence and nothing is out of the question it just a case of what is more plausable to each of us.

The story of Theseus somewhat supports what I'm saying.

Theseus took also part in the Argonautic expedition and fought with Herakles against the Amazons. He increased the territory of Athens, by conquering Megara, reaching as far as the Isthmos of Corinth.

He also introduced the Isthmia Games, at Isthmos.

http://www.sikyon.com/athens/ahist_eg01.html

Did the Games in some way bring a kind of order allowing the new hiearchy to rule the conquered tribes without rebellion?

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Olympic.htm

An alternative heritage of the Ionians is that they were of the Yavana kingdom.

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

Is it possible that it was the Ionians who moved east and became the Yavanas rather than being the other way around. Would that support the OLB perhaps? What period was Jon the sailor from? Is he Oannes? There is even a legend that Noah had a fourth son called Yonoton. Any connection? I know it's unlikely but there is just so much to draw on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Noah#Extrabiblical_sons_of_Noah

Theseus, Jason and Herakles were all part of the new Greece that was overcoming Megara and Amazons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actualy the point I am trying to make is that the Hellenes were the original primitive inhabitants of Greece and the Sea People (or Pelasgians) hailed from Western Europe. In the OLB the Frisians called themselves, or their sailors, the "Sea People".

After a civil war of sorts in ca 1628 BC, some of them fled the present day Netherlands and eventually settled in Attica where they founded Athens under the leadership of Minerva aka Nyhellenia. They had a sea king by the name of Jon who settled on the "Jon-his elanda" which later became known as the Ionian Islands.

This ties in with Herodotus' description of the Athenians who were Pelasgics (Sea People) of "Ionic Blood".

As I stated earlier, this happened as much as 800 to a 1000 years before the time Puzzler referred to.

No, I'm referring to the same time, here it is again:

For just at the time when the Athenians were entering into the Hellenic body, the Pelasgi came to live with them in their country, whence it was that the latter came first to be regarded as Greeks. Whoever has been initiated into the mysteries of the Cabiri will understand what I mean. The Samothracians received these mysteries from the Pelasgi, who, before they went to live in Attica, were dwellers in Samothrace, and imparted their religious ceremonies to the inhabitants.

This is from BEFORE the Pelasgi were even in Attica. They apparently were in Samothrace beforehand.

If the Pelasgi are in Attica, they are in Samothrace BEFORE hand. If anything, it's prior to the time frame you are speaking of, before the Pelasgi were in Attica.

It's all good though because there is no reason that Jon's people did not sail around the Aegean and priests created the original mysteries, it does include the Dioscuri, sailor protectors who are not Egyptian and Phoenician links, which all match up with the Pelasgians being Frisian Sea People anyway. Maybe it was the priests who set up on Samothrace. Seems likely rather than anything Jon or Minerva had to do with, considering they did not think Min-erva any kind of Goddess nor indulged in statues in temples. Plus I think the Phocaeans, Ionian sailors who sailed the best and furthest were the Phaeaceans anyway...who settled on the coast of Ionia.

hellingar for slope seems right, it's Old Norse, like most of the other words used.

From Old Norse hella < hallr (slope, incline)

Helle itself is apparently a Danish name, which is not that odd, when you consider the story of Helle in Greek myth.

If Teunis is suppose to be Poseidon, this King would more than likely be King Agenor this is referring to.

The king was a descendant of Teunis, as we were afterwards informed; but as the priests wished to have a king, who, according to their ideas, was of long descent, they deified Teunis, to the vexation of his followers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.