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
 Share

Recommended Posts

One bad time is passed by, but there is still another coming. Irtha has not given it birth, and Wr-alda has not decreed it. It comes from the East, out of the bosom of the priests. It will breed so much mischief that Irtha will not be able to drink the blood of her slain children. It will spread darkness over the minds of men like storm-clouds over the sunlight. Everywhere craft and deception shall contend with freedom and justice. Freedom and justice shall be overcome, and we with them. But this success will work out its own loss. Our descendants shall teach their people and their slaves the meaning of three words; they are universal love, freedom, and justice. At first they shall shine, then struggle with darkness, until every man’s head and heart has become bright and clear. Then shall oppression be driven from the earth, like the thunder-clouds by the storm-wind, and all deceit will cease to have any more power. Gosa.

This imo was Christianity. The priests (Magyar/Magi) that predicted Jesus of Nazareth birth, seem to be at odds with the Jews, who don't see him like that. This leads me to believe the Jews of the time knew these Magi priests were trying to get one over on everyone by announcing an important birth, maybe to re-empower themselves.

It's odd, I have the Jehovah's Witnesses visit me and talk to them a fair bit. They seperated from the Christian Church for one reason being, they think priests are manipulating con artists. They believe what Jesus stands for but do not believe that the priests should be handing it out and do not have priests at their Kingdom Halls. I really don't care how big their headquarters are in Holland etc etc, what I do find interesting is what they are saying about the bad priests actually conforms to what the OLB is telling us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're actually behind the times as I brought this up earlier. Tony's take, and Abramelin's too, appears to be that this IS Jesus Christ and that the writers were just incompetent as to the dating of same. Yet we're supposed to believe this is an historically accurate document. :rolleyes:

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're actually behind the times as I brought this up earlier. Tony's take, and Abramelin's too, appears to be that this IS Jesus Christ and that the writers were just incompetent as to the dating of same. Yet we're supposed to believe this is an historically accurate document. :rolleyes:

cormac

Yes, I went away for 2 weeks at the same time Tony joined, lost the plot and have been trying to catch up ever since.

Let's suppose that in spite of what we know about Christianity and how religious one is towards it and in no disrespect towards anyone, all very touchy touchy, that Jesus Christ IS meant born in 2193BC. Which I think he could well be, left in situ, for just over 2000 years until he was 'reborn' by these Magyar, maybe Magi who announced the birth of Jesus in Roman times.

The whole story is odd, the Jews do not accept Jesus is any kind of King, it appears to me that they recognise the Magi priests are attempting to manipulate the people, possibly by declaring a false King. (I think the basis of Jesus teachings is good but the OLB is telling us how manipulated it became by the priests, the JW's are telling me this same thing basically, they follow God's and Jesus teachings minus the priest aspect as they see it as evil and manipulating.)

The OLB gives a complete rundown of how the priests would do this.

One bad time is passed by, but there is still another coming. Irtha has not given it birth, and Wr-alda has not decreed it. It comes from the East, out of the bosom of the priests. It will breed so much mischief that Irtha will not be able to drink the blood of her slain children. It will spread darkness over the minds of men like storm-clouds over the sunlight. Everywhere craft and deception shall contend with freedom and justice. Freedom and justice shall be overcome, and we with them. But this success will work out its own loss. Our descendants shall teach their people and their slaves the meaning of three words; they are universal love, freedom, and justice. At first they shall shine, then struggle with darkness, until every mans head and heart has become bright and clear. Then shall oppression be driven from the earth, like the thunder-clouds by the storm-wind, and all deceit will cease to have any more power.

One problem is that it seems unhistorical because it doesn't fit into what we understand happened, it could be true possibly if what happened is not how we understand it to have occurred, manipulation is a powerful tool imo.

Stupid spell edits.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The culture does, however, fall into a much later time frame than would appear to be alluded to in the Oera Linda text.

.

Agreed. This culture existed after the demise of the Roman Empire which is long after the OLB or “Fryan” period. I do, however, think that it is not too far fetched to suggest that this culture "re-emerged" after the Roman oppression.

The author of the article admits that they have "only scratched the surface" to date (my interpretation) and a lot of their conclusions are guesswork.

For one thing, he states:

Anyway, early-medieval society in the region had to be built up again from the 5th century onward. In this period the ship appeared as new trump of the terp districts, especially when the sail came into use somewhere in the 6th century.”

The Frisians did not become international traders, mariners and navigators of note overnight, or even within one or two generations. They must have had this knowledge and skills for a very long time. The Romans may have used these under their own banner or suppressed it for obvious reasons, i.e. these Frisians’ maritime skills, if left unchecked, may well have posed an economic or military threat to the Roman Empire (at least in North-Western Europe).

More than 500 years before this “terp culture”, Tacitus, the Roman Senator and historian (ca 56 AD – ca 117 AD) wrote in his “Germania”

“The Germans, I am apt to believe, derive their original from no other people; and are nowise mixed with different nations arriving amongst them: since anciently those who went in search of new buildings, travelled not by land, but were carried in fleets; and into that mighty ocean so boundless, and, as I may call it, so repugnant and forbidding, ships from our world rarely enter.

For the rest, they affirm Germany to be a recent word, lately bestowed: for that those who first passed the Rhine and expulsed the Gauls, and are now named Tungrians, were then called Germans: and thus by degrees the name of a tribe prevailed, not that of the nation; so that by an appellation at first occasioned by terror and conquest, they afterwards chose to be distinguished, and assuming a name lately invented were universally called Germans.”

Elsewhere Tacitus noted:

“Hitherto, I have been describing Germany towards the west. To the northward, it winds away with an immense compass. And first of all occurs the nation of the Chaucians: who though they begin immediately at the confines of the Frisians, and occupy part of the shore, extend so far as to border upon all the several people whom I have already recounted; till at last, by a Circuit, they reach quite to the boundaries of the Chatti. A region so vast, the Chaucians do not only possess but fill; a people of all the Germans the most noble, such as would rather maintain their grandeur by justice than violence. They live in repose, retired from broils abroad, void of avidity to possess more, free from a spirit of domineering over others. They provoke no wars, they ravage no countries, they pursue no plunder. Of their bravery and power, the chief evidence arises from hence, that, without wronging or oppressing others, they are come to be superior to all. Yet they are all ready to arm, and if an exigency require, armies are presently raised, powerful and abounding as they are in men and horses; and even when they are quiet and their weapons laid aside, their credit and name continue equally high.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the Frisians of 6 {the 6th century} AD were already urbanized, very wealthy and imported many goods.

They were a strong political and military power. They were a skilled maritime nation who traded far and wide. This does not only imply staying above water but also means that they must have had exceptional navigational skills. These are not acquired in one or two generations and most likely they have been at it for centuries. (...)

Indications are, according to this article, that they even minted coins and manufactured sophisticated jewelry in 6 {the 6th century} AD. By all accounts then, it seems that they were much more developed than anybody else in the neighbourhood. (...)

This short article tells me that they (the Frisians) do not really have to “concoct” anything about their history. It is impressive by any standards and once again, the OLB does not seem unrealistic (i.e. to the open-minded).

Even after the correction, this is a thought I'd like to underline and invite us to rethink a few times. (I wrote this before reading Alewyn's last post, which I totally support.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Also, my apologies for yesterdays's post that was deleted.

However much on topic (keywords "OLB" and "hoax"), I projected my feelings towards liars, deceivers and swindlers in general onto one person, which is not fair.

I might post a more neutral version later, if that would be relevant.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Taking a break now, to look at things from a distance and return with fresh ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...manipulation is a powerful tool imo.

Manipulation of a few years or even possibly a few centuries, depending on the subject is one thing. But manipulation of nearly 2200 YEARS is rewriting history in order to make it what one wants it to be. The etymological machinations of this thread aside, there is nothing to suggest that the Magyar as a people of the mid-1st millenium AD and the Biblical Magi, who were from Mesopotamia or further eastwards 2000 years ago are one and the same. Regardless of similar sounding names.

One problem is that it seems unhistorical because it doesn't fit into what we understand happened...

It doesn't fit because someone, presumably the original writers, were attempting to impart an ancient history which is otherwise unattested. At least, as relates to the OP of this thread.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would they have mentioned huge buildings their ancestors built before 2194 BC?? You can bet on it.

I don't think it's necessary to what is being told in the OLB. Nor do I see any reason to mention them. I don't see any reason to think they were in awe of them either. Are we in awe of a church, gravestones or skyscrapers, no, they are just part of our landscape in our times. The whole megalith thing is mute imo anyway to the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manipulation of a few years or even possibly a few centuries, depending on the subject is one thing. But manipulation of nearly 2200 YEARS is rewriting history in order to make it what one wants it to be. The etymological machinations of this thread aside, there is nothing to suggest that the Magyar as a people of the mid-1st millenium AD and the Biblical Magi, who were from Mesopotamia or further eastwards 2000 years ago are one and the same. Regardless of similar sounding names.

It doesn't fit because someone, presumably the original writers, were attempting to impart an ancient history which is otherwise unattested. At least, as relates to the OP of this thread.

cormac

Of course it is and that's what has happened. Priests HAVE manipulated us for thousands of years. Even in the Enlightenment Copernicus had to add a letter in his book with profuse apologies to the Pope how his work was not to be taken as valid science.

I should have been more particular with my wording before and said Catholicism rather than Christianity but my meaning was, the early followers of Christ were basically Catholic until Henry VIII said no more. His Church of England became the new wave of Jesus followers who could practice their same faith with no adhering to the stricter Catholic priestly ways.

I'm not talking about Magyar of mid-1st millenium AD. You might think the term Magyar is referring to Hungarian Magyar, you could be wrong.

I think the Magyar in the OLB book are the later Magi and they entered Europe with I-E language and with cows and stone battle axes, the Battle Axe culture. The regular people did have stone weapons the book tells us and that is the weapon I think they had when they entered Europe.

I also think they became the Chaldeans, meaning imo, master calculators. The Persians had them at their courts but I dont think the Chaldeans, that is the Magi were actually the same as the Persians.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might think the term Magyar is referring to Hungarian Magyar, you could be wrong.

No one, including yourself, has presented valid evidence to suggest otherwise and the term Magyar as it is used has nothing to do with the Magi. Also that the earliest reference to Magi dates to c.6th century BC while the earliest usage of Magyar does not date that far back.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sixteen hundred years ago (she writes, 593 B.C.), Atland was submerged; and at that time something happened which nobody had reckoned upon. In the heart of Findasland, upon a mountain, lies a plain called Kasamyr (Cashmere) that is “extraordinary.” There was a child born whose mother was the daughter of a king, and whose father was a high-priest.

Alewyn's book and most other interpretations of this section tell us that Jesus of Kashmir was around 593BC, when that part of the book is written but even in the OLB text it still seems to say that he was born when Atland sunk.

Alewyn admits this Jes-vs is not Jesus of Nazareth but what does anyone make of this Kashmir Jesus being born in 2193BC?

The translation that I used (Sandbach edited by Tony Steele?) obviously differs from yours, viz.:

The Writings of Frethorik and Wiliow, Chapter V (The Writings of Dela Hellenia)

“5. In the year 1600 after Atland was submerged, something happened which nobody had reckoned upon. In the heart of Finda's land, upon a mountain, lies a plain called Kasamyr, that is, "Extraordinary". There was a child born whose mother was the daughter of a king, and whose father was a high-priest. In order to hide the shame they were obliged to renounce their own blood. Therefore it (he) was taken out of the state to poor people.”

As you can see this translation clearly says 593 BC.

Be that as it may; I would like to suggest that this is the biggest single reason why the OLB was rejected and branded as a hoax. It is also the one part that I cannot explain satisfactorily. All the other facts in the OLB I examined checked out with ancient historians, archaeology, etc.

This entry is the only part that does not pass the external evidence test (i.e. Do other historical materials confirm or deny the internal testimony provided by the documents themselves?)

It may well be that this story of “Jessos of Kasamyr” was a fabrication and therefore the real hoax of the OLB (by Dela Hellenia or somebody else) to discredit the “Christian” clerics of the time. If this was the case, this part would have been inserted at a much later date e.g. the early Middle Ages. It would further be ironic that in their quest to discredit Christianity, they in effect not only discredited the OLB, but also all of ancient Frisian history.

In “Survivors of the Great Tsunami”, I tried to test the OLB against three historiography tests namely:

1. The Bibliographical test

(“In the absence of an original copy, how reliable are the copies that we have?”)

Obviously we have only one copy that was purportedly transcribed in 1256 AD. The delayed results of the tests done on the paper and ink could go a long way towards proving that the OLB dates at least from 1256 AD and not the 19th century. This on its own would still not be sufficient proof, though, that the OLB represents the true history of the Frisians.

2. The internal evidence test:

(“Basically giving the document itself the benefit of the doubt unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies,”)

The OLB, to my mind, passed this test. There are a few instances which, at a first glance, could be construed as contradictions or inaccuracies. It must, however be borne in mind that the OLB was written by different authors and compiled from writings spanning almost two millennia. In the broader context these “contradictions” are not only admissible but can also be explained.

3. The external evidence test:

(“Do other historical materials confirm or deny the internal testimony provided by the documents themselves?”)

The episode of “Jessos of Kasamyr” is the one part that does not pass this test. This, however, is not sufficient reason to reject the book in its entirety.

As for the rest, I believe that all the external evidence I presented in “Survivors of the Great Tsunami” vindicate the OLB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[it's odd, I have the Jehovah's Witnesses visit me and talk to them a fair bit. They seperated from the Christian Church for one reason being, they think priests are manipulating con artists. They believe what Jesus stands for but do not believe that the priests should be handing it out and do not have priests at their Kingdom Halls. I really don't care how big their headquarters are in Holland etc etc, what I do find interesting is what they are saying about the bad priests actually conforms to what the OLB is telling us.

I really do not want to go into a debate about religion here, but you obviously know very little about Christianity. The Jehova's Witnesses did not seperate from the Christian Churches by their own choice. They are not recognised as Christians because they deny the deity of Jesus Christ as defined in the Bible.

Edited by Alewyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one, including yourself, has presented valid evidence to suggest otherwise and the term Magyar as it is used has nothing to do with the Magi. Also that the earliest reference to Magi dates to c.6th century BC while the earliest usage of Magyar does not date that far back.

cormac

You don't know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The translation that I used (Sandbach edited by Tony Steele?) obviously differs from yours, viz.:

The Writings of Frethorik and Wiliow, Chapter V (The Writings of Dela Hellenia)

“5. In the year 1600 after Atland was submerged, something happened which nobody had reckoned upon. In the heart of Finda's land, upon a mountain, lies a plain called Kasamyr, that is, "Extraordinary". There was a child born whose mother was the daughter of a king, and whose father was a high-priest. In order to hide the shame they were obliged to renounce their own blood. Therefore it (he) was taken out of the state to poor people.”

As you can see this translation clearly says 593 BC.

Be that as it may; I would like to suggest that this is the biggest single reason why the OLB was rejected and branded as a hoax. It is also the one part that I cannot explain satisfactorily. All the other facts in the OLB I examined checked out with ancient historians, archaeology, etc.

This entry is the only part that does not pass the external evidence test (i.e. Do other historical materials confirm or deny the internal testimony provided by the documents themselves?)

It may well be that this story of “Jessos of Kasamyr” was a fabrication and therefore the real hoax of the OLB (by Dela Hellenia or somebody else) to discredit the “Christian” clerics of the time. If this was the case, this part would have been inserted at a much later date e.g. the early Middle Ages. It would further be ironic that in their quest to discredit Christianity, they in effect not only discredited the OLB, but also all of ancient Frisian history.

In “Survivors of the Great Tsunami”, I tried to test the OLB against three historiography tests namely:

1. The Bibliographical test

(“In the absence of an original copy, how reliable are the copies that we have?”)

Obviously we have only one copy that was purportedly transcribed in 1256 AD. The delayed results of the tests done on the paper and ink could go a long way towards proving that the OLB dates at least from 1256 AD and not the 19th century. This on its own would still not be sufficient proof, though, that the OLB represents the true history of the Frisians.

2. The internal evidence test:

(“Basically giving the document itself the benefit of the doubt unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies,”)

The OLB, to my mind, passed this test. There are a few instances which, at a first glance, could be construed as contradictions or inaccuracies. It must, however be borne in mind that the OLB was written by different authors and compiled from writings spanning almost two millennia. In the broader context these “contradictions” are not only admissible but can also be explained.

3. The external evidence test:

(“Do other historical materials confirm or deny the internal testimony provided by the documents themselves?”)

The episode of “Jessos of Kasamyr” is the one part that does not pass this test. This, however, is not sufficient reason to reject the book in its entirety.

As for the rest, I believe that all the external evidence I presented in “Survivors of the Great Tsunami” vindicate the OLB.

I see how your translation does say what you said but this one does not and the rest of the passage lends me to think it fits with the context of him being born when Atland sank. As you say written by Dela, 1600 years after Atland sank, is the interpretation I'd go on..so that makes it 593BC when she wrote it...as you know, if she was speaking of right now,(in her present) in her time, wouldn't it be phrased as such, to think Jessos was born exactly when Dela writes doesn't seem right to me.

Sixteen hundred years ago (she writes, 593 B.C.), Atland was submerged; and at that time something happened which nobody had reckoned upon. In the heart of Findasland, upon a mountain, lies a plain called Kasamyr (Cashmere) that is “extraordinary.” There was a child born whose mother was the daughter of a king, and whose father was a high-priest. In order to hide the shame they were obliged to renounce their own blood.

She also goes on to tell us how he was deified by these priests but in doing so they were really extinguishing his light etc...

How would all that have occurred if he was only born when Dela was writing it?

At last he was obliged to flee from the wrath of the priests; but wherever he went his teaching had preceded him, whilst his enemies followed him like his shadow. When Jessos had thus travelled for twelve years he died; but his friends preserved his teaching, and spread it wherever they found listeners.

What do you think the priests did then? That I must tell you, and you must give your best attention to it. Moreover, you must keep guard against their acts and their tricks with all the strength that Wr-alda has given you. While the doctrine of Jessos was thus spreading over the earth, the false priests went to the land of his birth to make his death known. They said they were his friends, and they pretended to show great sorrow by tearing their clothes and shaving their heads. They went to live in caves in the mountains, but in them they had hid all their treasures, and they made in them images of Jessos. They gave these statues to simple people, and at last they said that Jessos was a god, that he had declared this himself to them, and that all those who followed his doctrine should enter his kingdom hereafter, where all was joy and happiness. Because they knew that he was opposed to the rich, they announced everywhere that poverty, suffering, and humility were the door by which to enter into his kingdom, and that those who had suffered the most on earth should enjoy the greatest happiness there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and maybe it is showing how in history people did gobble up this stuff. There is no need to make a fake to tell us that, it seems true to me that that IS how it occurred. That to me is what the book is saying, people were just eaten alive by these priests, gullible people, who had not much else. When liberty arrived on their doorstep, it was still very hard to empower people. In time it might happen. The part in the book about the Slavics shows this.

In the olden times, the Slavonic race knew nothing of liberty. They were brought under the yoke like oxen. They were driven into the bowels of the earth to dig metals, and had to build houses of stone as dwelling-places for princes and priests. Of all that they did nothing came to themselves, everything must serve to enrich and make more powerful the priests and the princes, and to satisfy them. Under this treatment they grew gray and old before their time, and died without any enjoyment; although the earth produces abundantly for the good of all her children. But our runaways and exiles came through Twiskland to their boundaries, and our sailors came to their harbours. From them they heard of liberty, of justice, and laws, without which men cannot exist. This was all absorbed by the unhappy people like dew into an arid soil. When they fully understood this, the most courageous among them began to clank their chains, which grieved the princes. The princes are proud and warlike; there is therefore some virtue in their hearts. They consulted together and bestowed some of their superfluity; but the cowardly hypocritical priests could not suffer this. Among their false gods they had invented also wicked cruel monsters. Pestilence broke out in the country; and they said that the gods were angry with the domineering of the wicked. Then the boldest of the people were strangled in their chains. The earth drank their blood, and that blood produced corn and fruits that inspired with wisdom those who ate them.

Just after that I read it closely some more and it really says that this Jessos or Jes-vs was born in 2193BC, same time as Atland sunk.

Sixteen hundred years ago (she writes, 593 B.C.), Atland was submerged; and at that time something happened which nobody had reckoned upon. In the heart of Findasland, upon a mountain, lies a plain called Kasamyr (Cashmere) that is “extraordinary.” There was a child born whose mother was the daughter of a king, and whose father was a high-priest.

Alewyn's book and most other interpretations of this section tell us that Jesus of Kashmir was around 593BC, when that part of the book is written but even in the OLB text it still seems to say that he was born when Atland sunk.

16 wâra 100 jêr lêden is Atland svnken, aend to thêra tidum bêrade thêr awat hwêr vppa nimman rêkned nêde.

and to that/there time

Edit add link: http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/#br

She hasn't written, in this time or now, it has specifically referred to as happening when Atland sunk.

Alewyn admits this Jes-vs is not Jesus of Nazareth but what does anyone make of this Kashmir Jesus being born in 2193BC?

In that context, it seems even less of a fake. Why would fakers have someone supposedly intentioned to be Jesus Christ being born in 2193BC...?

The original Frisian seems to imply that the date should be 594 BC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're actually behind the times as I brought this up earlier. Tony's take, and Abramelin's too, appears to be that this IS Jesus Christ and that the writers were just incompetent as to the dating of same. Yet we're supposed to believe this is an historically accurate document. :rolleyes:

cormac

Not incompetent. Perhaps they were reporting a different tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do not want to go into a debate about religion here, but you obviously know very little about Christianity. The Jehova's Witnesses did not seperate from the Christian Churches by their own choice. They are not recognised as Christians because they deny the deity of Jesus Christ as defined in the Bible.

Me neither so I'll leave it at that last post on Jessos. I think they did seperate from their own choice. I have a weekly JW lesson just for the sake of learning about them.

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian[1] restorationist[2] Christian[3] denomination[4] with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelism,[5] convention attendance of over 12 million, and annual Memorial attendance of over 18 million.[6][7] They are directed by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, a group of elders that exercises authority on all doctrinal matters. Witnesses base their beliefs on the Bible, and prefer their own translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.[8] Their central belief is the imminent destruction of the present world order at Armageddon and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth, which they consider to be the only solution for all problems faced by humankind.[9]

The group emerged from the Bible Student movement, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell, with the formation of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society. The name Jehovah's witnesses, based on Isaiah 43:10–12, was adopted in 1931 to distinguish themselves from other groups of Bible Students.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The translation that I used (Sandbach edited by Tony Steele?) obviously differs from yours, viz.:

The Writings of Frethorik and Wiliow, Chapter V (The Writings of Dela Hellenia)

“5. In the year 1600 after Atland was submerged, something happened which nobody had reckoned upon. In the heart of Finda's land, upon a mountain, lies a plain called Kasamyr, that is, "Extraordinary". There was a child born whose mother was the daughter of a king, and whose father was a high-priest. In order to hide the shame they were obliged to renounce their own blood. Therefore it (he) was taken out of the state to poor people.”

As you can see this translation clearly says 593 BC.

Be that as it may; I would like to suggest that this is the biggest single reason why the OLB was rejected and branded as a hoax. It is also the one part that I cannot explain satisfactorily. All the other facts in the OLB I examined checked out with ancient historians, archaeology, etc.

This entry is the only part that does not pass the external evidence test (i.e. Do other historical materials confirm or deny the internal testimony provided by the documents themselves?)

It may well be that this story of “Jessos of Kasamyr” was a fabrication and therefore the real hoax of the OLB (by Dela Hellenia or somebody else) to discredit the “Christian” clerics of the time. If this was the case, this part would have been inserted at a much later date e.g. the early Middle Ages. It would further be ironic that in their quest to discredit Christianity, they in effect not only discredited the OLB, but also all of ancient Frisian history.

In “Survivors of the Great Tsunami”, I tried to test the OLB against three historiography tests namely:

1. The Bibliographical test

(“In the absence of an original copy, how reliable are the copies that we have?”)

Obviously we have only one copy that was purportedly transcribed in 1256 AD. The delayed results of the tests done on the paper and ink could go a long way towards proving that the OLB dates at least from 1256 AD and not the 19th century. This on its own would still not be sufficient proof, though, that the OLB represents the true history of the Frisians.

2. The internal evidence test:

(“Basically giving the document itself the benefit of the doubt unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies,”)

The OLB, to my mind, passed this test. There are a few instances which, at a first glance, could be construed as contradictions or inaccuracies. It must, however be borne in mind that the OLB was written by different authors and compiled from writings spanning almost two millennia. In the broader context these “contradictions” are not only admissible but can also be explained.

3. The external evidence test:

(“Do other historical materials confirm or deny the internal testimony provided by the documents themselves?”)

The episode of “Jessos of Kasamyr” is the one part that does not pass this test. This, however, is not sufficient reason to reject the book in its entirety.

As for the rest, I believe that all the external evidence I presented in “Survivors of the Great Tsunami” vindicate the OLB.

Yes, I altered Sandbach there to more clearly bring out what I take to be the meaning of the original Frisian.

In my opinion the mention of Jes-us in the OLB (Jessos is Ottema's spelling) is one of the biggest single pieces of evidence for the book's veracity. The forgers, we are told, were all devout Protestants - one was even a preacher - and are not likely to have concocted something like that. Ottema was clearly very uncomfortable with it, and as is indicated by his footnote, had managed to convince himself that the person referred to was not Jesus of Nazareth.

Many different stories were told about Jesus, only some of which - the "official" versions - ended up in the Bible. The writers of the OLB could easily have picked up on one of these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me neither so I'll leave it at that last post on Jessos. I think they did seperate from their own choice. I have a weekly JW lesson just for the sake of learning about them.

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian[1] restorationist[2] Christian[3] denomination[4] with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelism,[5] convention attendance of over 12 million, and annual Memorial attendance of over 18 million.[6][7] They are directed by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, a group of elders that exercises authority on all doctrinal matters. Witnesses base their beliefs on the Bible, and prefer their own translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.[8] Their central belief is the imminent destruction of the present world order at Armageddon and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth, which they consider to be the only solution for all problems faced by humankind.[9]

The group emerged from the Bible Student movement, founded in the late 19th century by Charles Taze Russell, with the formation of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society. The name Jehovah's witnesses, based on Isaiah 43:10–12, was adopted in 1931 to distinguish themselves from other groups of Bible Students.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jehovahs-Witnesses.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see how your translation does say what you said but this one does not and the rest of the passage lends me to think it fits with the context of him being born when Atland sank. As you say written by Dela, 1600 years after Atland sank, is the interpretation I'd go on..so that makes it 593BC when she wrote it...as you know, if she was speaking of right now,(in her present) in her time, wouldn't it be phrased as such, to think Jessos was born exactly when Dela writes doesn't seem right to me.

Sixteen hundred years ago (she writes, 593 B.C.), Atland was submerged; and at that time something happened which nobody had reckoned upon. In the heart of Findasland, upon a mountain, lies a plain called Kasamyr (Cashmere) that is “extraordinary.” There was a child born whose mother was the daughter of a king, and whose father was a high-priest. In order to hide the shame they were obliged to renounce their own blood.

She also goes on to tell us how he was deified by these priests but in doing so they were really extinguishing his light etc...

How would all that have occurred if he was only born when Dela was writing it?

At last he was obliged to flee from the wrath of the priests; but wherever he went his teaching had preceded him, whilst his enemies followed him like his shadow. When Jessos had thus travelled for twelve years he died; but his friends preserved his teaching, and spread it wherever they found listeners.

What do you think the priests did then? That I must tell you, and you must give your best attention to it. Moreover, you must keep guard against their acts and their tricks with all the strength that Wr-alda has given you. While the doctrine of Jessos was thus spreading over the earth, the false priests went to the land of his birth to make his death known. They said they were his friends, and they pretended to show great sorrow by tearing their clothes and shaving their heads. They went to live in caves in the mountains, but in them they had hid all their treasures, and they made in them images of Jessos. They gave these statues to simple people, and at last they said that Jessos was a god, that he had declared this himself to them, and that all those who followed his doctrine should enter his kingdom hereafter, where all was joy and happiness. Because they knew that he was opposed to the rich, they announced everywhere that poverty, suffering, and humility were the door by which to enter into his kingdom, and that those who had suffered the most on earth should enjoy the greatest happiness there.

Sandbach's translation (from Ottema's Dutch translation) rather mangles the meaning here, and the words in brackets are not derived from the original at all. Dela wasn't writing in 594 BC, but was referring back to that date. And, since "Dela" is almost certainly Adela - she has the same surname, and this passage is placed alongside passages written by Frana and Gosa, we know that Adela died in 559 BC, so could have been writing anything up to 35 years after Jes-us's birth, when he was clearly already dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandbach's translation (from Ottema's Dutch translation) rather mangles the meaning here, and the words in brackets are not derived from the original at all. Dela wasn't writing in 594 BC, but was referring back to that date. And, since "Dela" is almost certainly Adela - she has the same surname, and this passage is placed alongside passages written by Frana and Gosa, we know that Adela died in 559 BC, so could have been writing anything up to 35 years after Jes-us's birth, when he was clearly already dead.

I don't think Sandbach mangled it at all really. The original transliteration from Ottema appears to me to say -

16 wâra 100 jêr lêden is Atland svnken, aend to thêra tidum bêrade thêr awat hwêr vppa nimman rêkned nêde.

and to their/that time.

A brain strain for sure though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Sandbach mangled it at all really. The original transliteration from Ottema appears to me to say -

16 wâra 100 jêr lêden is Atland svnken, aend to thêra tidum bêrade thêr awat hwêr vppa nimman rêkned nêde.

and to their/that time.

A brain strain for sure though.

Yes, it does meam "and at that time" - the time in question being 1600 years after Atland was sunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many different stories were told about Jesus, only some of which - the "official" versions - ended up in the Bible. The writers of the OLB could easily have picked up on one of these.

If you want to compare two objects, subjects or in this case, two books, you obviously have to study both. In the case of Jesus of Nazareth from the Bible vs. Jesus of Kashmir from the OLB, you have to study both to see whether there is a resemblance but, more importantly, what are the differences (apart from the dates of 593/4 BC or 2193/4 BC).

A good book I can recommend is “More than a carpenter” by Josh McDowell ($4 to $7 @ Amazon)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to compare two objects, subjects or in this case, two books, you obviously have to study both. In the case of Jesus of Nazareth from the Bible vs. Jesus of Kashmir from the OLB, you have to study both to see whether there is a resemblance but, more importantly, what are the differences (apart from the dates of 593/4 BC or 2193/4 BC).

A good book I can recommend is “More than a carpenter” by Josh McDowell ($4 to $7 @ Amazon)

It's clear that the writers of the OLB intended to refer to Jesus of Nazareth. The passage goes on to describe how after his death the priests corrupted his message, and mentions the light of Jesus, etc.

This does not mean that what the OLB says about Jesus is correct.

For a good book about Jesus I would recommend "The Masks of Christ: Behind the Lies and Cover-ups About the Life of Jesus" by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it does meam "and at that time" - the time in question being 1600 years after Atland was sunk.

I get it now.

Depends how you read it, even in the context it is.

16 wâra 100 jêr lêden is Atland svnken, aend to thêra tidum bêrade thêr awat hwêr vppa nimman rêkned nêde.

The writings are from Hellenia via Dela, so I could then assume that Dela is in a later timeframe than the writings of Hellenia (presumable from 593BC).

Moving on....

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things that were not known in the 1860s, that the OLB has since been proven correct about.

2. Female priestesses in ancient Northern Europe.

In the 1920s, archeologists discovered the Egtved Girl in Denmark, dating to 1370 BC. Her distinctive dress caused a sensation, yet in the OLB we read:

Jes. Skênland blôst, slâvona folka stôppath vppat thin klât, o Frya.

Translated by Sandbach as:

"Yes. Schoonland (Scandinavia) blushes, an enslaved people tramples on your garment, O Frya."

And by myself as:

"Yes. Skenland blushes, an enslaved people tramples on your short kilt, O Frya."

This is what the Egtved Girl was wearing:

Egtved_Girl.gif

Since the 1920s many other examples of this style of dress have turned up in burials. But remarkably, we have more. We actually have figurines from the same period, showing women wearing identical corded skirts, performing ritual dances. The burials indicate high social status, from the ruling class. Very strong evidence, indeed, of a ritualised priestesshood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.