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

Yes but the Frisian Almanac list does not have 1656 year period between Creation and the Flood.

It has Creation at 5788 years ago and the Flood at 4032 years ago.

It's a 1756 year period not 1656 as far as I can see.

Late here, back tomorrow.

This is what Cormac said:

I believe the 100 year difference of Scaliger might be explained by the fact that Noah is shown as 500 when he has Shem, Ham and Japheth and 600 years (the 100 year difference) when the Flood occurs.

Btw: all the Frisian Volksalmanacs of between 1832 and 1851 have this difference of 1756 years between Creation and Flood (and yes, I checked them all, lol).

And another btw: the Overijsselse Almanak voor oudheid en letteren, Volume 19 / 1854 also uses Scaliger's numbers:

http://books.google.nl/books?id=_YdbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA3&hl=nl&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Halbertsma published in both almanacs.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that is what I suggested: someone (a Christian) picked the most accpted (avarage) date of the Flood: 2345 BC.

Then substracted two times the avarage period of revolution of Halley's Comet, and came to 2194 BC.

Then (or even before that) he checked if that date would be 1656 years after the 3850 BC date for the Creation (calculated straightforward), and voila, 2194 BC we have.

Then add a chart like Puzzler posted of the heavens during the Vernal Equinox around 21 September (end of the summer) 2914 BC (nicely close to the Pleiades) and we have a bingo, lol.

.

I don't know that this has any real relevance Abramelin, but found it interesting anyway. If something similar was done to Scaliger's date of Creation c.5508, subtracting the Masoretic Texts 1656 twice, we get a near match with c.2196 BC.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this thread doesn't die.

It appears to suffer seizures and bouts of aloofishness from time to time.

But it's off to a ripping good start to the new year.

Ok...back to the gallery.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol

This thread will never end, it's just a bottomless pit, I bet we will still be here in another 5 years...maybe even 10. Maybe we can get into the Guinness Book of Records for the longest continuous forum thread ever.

This guy probably wrote the OLB himself the way this is heading...

Worhwile to read: http://home.kpn.nl/genesis/Europa/09Ouderdom%20van%20de%20Aarde.htm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't anyone worry about this thread dying anywhere soon...

Oh My God, read this (it's a long read, but damn interesting):

In 1531 Nostredame was invited by Jules-César Scaliger, a leading Renaissance scholar, to come to Agen.

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

---

There is even a special irony here. Nostradamus met, and for a time was friendly with the brilliant but quarrelsome Julius-Cesar Scaliger, father of the great classical scholar Joseph Justus Scaliger. The irony is that it was the younger Scaliger whose unaided brains first produced sense and intelligibility out of the corrupt MSS of the difficult astrological Latin epic the Astronomica of Manilius. To edit Manilius has since been seen as ascending the Mount Everest of textual criticism, something later achieved by first Bentley and then Housman, and it needs knowledge of astrology as well as knowledge of Latin. The towering intellects of Scaliger Bentley and Housman went about the matter in one way. Several centuries of human credulity have gone into explaining the texts of Nostradamus, and this is the tradition that Mrs Cheetham treats us to.

http://www.amazon.com/Prophecies-Nostradamus-Man-Who-Tomorrow/product-reviews/0425087573

---

There are many methods in which key astronomy data can be be encoded into verse and the prime mystery is what is Nostradamus' method.

His technique is likely to involve a method of dating based on the 28 year solar cycle, the nineteen year Metonic cycle of the Moon and the movement of the Little and Big Bears during the year. These cycles will be explained at a later point but at this point I would like to advance the supporting evidence for their use.

There is a significant indirect piece of evidence in the history of the astronomical calendar. In the modern day astronomers use a calendar based on 'Julian Days'. This is different from the Julian Calendar that was used for over 1600 years from the time of Julius Caesar.

The astronomers calendar was named by Joseph Scaliger when he developed its structure in 1582 century. Joseph was the son of Jules Scaliger after whom he is reprted to have named his dating method.

Jules Scaliger was a physician, poet, mathematician, astronomer & astrologer who served Bishop Rovero in Agen, southern France. In the 1630's he became impressed by a young physician by the name of Michel de Nostredame and invited him to Agen to work and live. For several years they enjoyed a strong friendship but Michel de Nostredame and Scaliger acrimonously parted company four years before the birth of Joseph.

Joseph's calendar was based on three cycles, the Solar cycle, the Metonic cycle and the 15 year cycle of indiction. The solar cycle of 28 years is the space of time needed before the order of days within a year exactly repeats itself. The Metonic cycle of 19 years is based on the almost exact relationship between the moon and the sun where all of the positions of the moon in relation to the sun repeat themselves every 19 years. The cycle of indiction has no astronomic significance being based on a Roman tax cycle which was the date at which all property was valued for tax purposes. It is a figure that seems to have been chosen to produce an unstated end.

There is little doubt that Joseph would have been influenced by his father's views of astronomy for Jules Scaliger was too strong a mind for it to have been otherwise but it is also likely that Jules and Nostradamus views were each shaped by the other because of the years that the two older men had spent together. It is therefore probable that Nostradamus, Jules and Joseph all rated these cycles as important dating mechanisms.

There is support for this claim within Nostradamus' writings.

In his letter to Henry, Second King of France, 1558 Nostradamus included two strange biblical calendars, strange because they are mathematically inaccurate and although supposedly relating to the same periods of time, they differ markedly from each other. Given the context as to whom they are supposedly addressed and the known intellectual capacities of Nostradamus it is improbable that these aspects and variations are accidental.

In his first table the years from the beginning of time to 1558 add up to 6,308 whilst in the second they add up to 5,555.66.

Now the product of the solar and Metonic cycles is 28 x 19 = 532 and the product of this with 15 year cycle of induction is 7980. This span of almost 8000 years is the length of the cycle for the Astronomic calendar. (Addendum September 2005: Every Julian year could be expressed as a unique cipher 'A.B.C' where A.B & C are the number in each cycle but you would need to know the order of the cycles for it to be useful)

In his letter to Cesar Nostradamus had used an end date of 3797 (see earlier). The difference in years from 1558 to 3797 is 2239. The figure 5,555.16 (end of previous paragraph) added to 2239 gives 7794.16. Now this is close to 7980 but there is a difference. However although the numbers add up 5555.16 using the second calendar, Nostradamus says they should actually add up to a figure 173.50 higher. He says the addition of his figures to the birth of Christ should add up to 4173.66 (and adding 1555 then gives 5728.66 not 5555.16. Adding the 3797 to 4173 takes the total to 7970).

'Thus this calculation of mine, collected from the holy writ, comes to about 4173 years and 8 months more or less." .. Nostradamus , Epistle to King Henry. 27 June 1558

(Addendum: September 2005- Although not precisely the same number the 4173BC for the start of his calendar is interestingly similar to the 4317BC used by Joseph Scaliger as his starting date for the modern astronomical Julian Calendar).

If we apply the addition to the figures stated by Nostradamus as representing the years before and after the birth of Christ we have 4173.66+3797=7970.66. This is even closer to the figure produced using Joseph Scaliger's cycles. There are 7980 years from the beginning of the cycle to the end in the astronomic calendar and 7970 years from the beginning to the end in Nostradamus calendar.

http://alynptyltd.tripod.com/nd/AA_CalendarCode.htm

---

The next is Justus Scaliger about a not very complimental letter his father wrote to Nostradamus ("Michael"):

Joseph Justus Scaliger

May 1, 1566 Separating the letters of the father and his son was a piece of brown wrapping paper,

which Nostradamus discarded to the side of the desk. Nostradamus then pulled out the

attached letter with enthusiasm. Julius Caesar Scaliger‘s last letter to Nostradamus read

as follows:

(...) You, on the other hand, will be hawking another edition of your prophetic drivel.

Many of your verses, Michel, are simply plagiarized from prophets of earlier ages. The

remainder of your verses are drafted in such vague and indecipherable terms that they

may mean almost anything to anyone. It astounds me that masters of the written word

like Vergil are attacked by critics on a daily basis, while you make riches off verses so

poorly written and so poorly constructed that one would think that the literary critics

would be armed with pitchforks at your gate. Yet, for some reason, they have prepared

the fatted calf for you. And while true prophets are ignored, you shamelessly convince

the world that you can predict future events by looking at the stars. You know, Michel,

that I see through you. I know for a fact that the great “predictor of pigs” cannot predict

future events. If you could, your wife and children would be alive today. And I plan to

reveal to your centuries of followers what a charlatan and liar you really are. You may

think this is a big game, but when I get finished with you, you will regret

your abandonment, fraud, and plagiarism.

(...)

http://www.free-ebooks.net/ebook/Quatrain/html/35

And on the former page:

Nostradamus looked at the letter lying on the night stand beside his desk and thought

of its implications. The letter, delivered by a small eleven year-old boy yesterday, was

written by Joseph Justus Scaliger, the son of Nostradamus‘ late mentor and former friend,

Julius Caesar Scaliger. The letter was dated May 1, 1566, and read:

http://www.free-ebooks.net/ebook/Quatrain/html/34#read

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do hope people remember when I started about astrology/astronomy/nautical navigation/watchstars and all that, and said that someone interested in astrology must have contributed to the OLB...

And don't forget about those prophecies made in the OLB.

Noooo... this thread won't die soon, heh.

"And now for something completely different" (yes, I really loved those Monty Python shows, lol).

I have said that that word, "WAK", that showed up in the OLB and on the Over de Linden coat of arms as made by Cornelis Over de Linden himself, intrigued me.

I was quite certain it was a word in one of Nostradamus' "Centuries" or maybe in one of Mother Shipton's prophecies, but I DID remember it had to do with the sound some bird made.

You won't have any idea how long I searched and searched, and in the meantime ignoring what was constantly wandering around in my mind.... Indonesia/Philippines.

< skip >

Btw, I am NOT suggesting it was Nostradamus himself, or a Justus Scaliger, who contributed to the OLB, lol.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that this has any real relevance Abramelin, but found it interesting anyway. If something similar was done to Scaliger's date of Creation c.5508, subtracting the Masoretic Texts 1656 twice, we get a near match with c.2196 BC.

cormac

I think I'm going to weep a little:

Appendix: Scaliger's List of Eras

http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/scalera.htm

Or this:

http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/scalera.htm#3a

2294 BC...

I think I have seen more than enough numbers for today, my head is spinning.

What you think of what's in those links, Cormac?

All I can think of now is that someone used Scaliger's numbers and 'corrected' them.

Again those damn 100 years difference.

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to weep a little:

Appendix: Scaliger's List of Eras

http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/scalera.htm

Or this:

http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/scalera.htm#3a

2294 BC...

I think I have seen more than enough numbers for today, my head is spinning.

What you think of what's in those links, Cormac?

All I can think of now is that someone used Scaliger's numbers and 'corrected' them.

Again those damn 100 years difference.

.

I tend to agree with you, which once again suggests that it's all of a more recent origin and certainly NOT from the 22nd century BC. :tu:

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with you, which once again suggests that it's all of a more recent origin and certainly NOT from the 22nd century BC. :tu:

cormac

Well, I think we agreed on that many times before.

But why the 100 years difference?

A wrong interpretation of Scaliger's figures?

Trying to be original?

What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think we agreed on that many times before.

But why the 100 years difference?

A wrong interpretation of Scaliger's figures?

Trying to be original?

What?

I still have to wonder if it's not related to the 100 year difference between Noah's age when Shem, Ham and Japheth were born and the start of the Flood. But even if not, the article you linked suggests that his calculations and framework had internal inconsistencies of their own. It may just well be a relic of those inconsistencies.

cormac

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this thread doesn't die.

It appears to suffer seizures and bouts of aloofishness from time to time.

But it's off to a ripping good start to the new year.

Ok...back to the gallery.

lol Thanks for stopping by, Happy New Year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think we agreed on that many times before.

But why the 100 years difference?

A wrong interpretation of Scaliger's figures?

Trying to be original?

What?

I'm not sure but it seems it could be in the OLB as the 101 years later when the Magyar arrived, I always found that rather odd, it's not like Atland sank and the people migrated out - it was 100 years later, which gives the impression the Flood may have been 100 years later. Like a 101 year fill in gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that stuff with Nostradamus was interesting. Maybe I am prophetic, lol, I bought a book the other week on Nostradamus thinking it might have clues in it about OLB related astrology. It's not just his predicitions but much info on him in general and old pictures, I'll have a better look at it now. That dressing down Scaliger gave him was a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that this has any real relevance Abramelin, but found it interesting anyway. If something similar was done to Scaliger's date of Creation c.5508, subtracting the Masoretic Texts 1656 twice, we get a near match with c.2196 BC.

cormac

Scaliger's date of creation is 3950BC wasn't it? Sunday the 25th October to be precise.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quoted this from Hyginus Astronomica:

The fifth star is Mercurys, named Stilbon. It is small and bright. It is attributed to Mercury because he first established the months and perceived the courses of the constellations. Euhemerus says that Venus first established the constellations and taught Mercury.

This to me indicates a time that might be considered at Creation - because of the mention of the beginning of first establishment of the months and constellations - from this point of time onwards. Venus is mentioned, maybe it was her that taught Mercury. They rise in Sagittarius.

So, checking Saliger's date of creation at 25th Oct 3950BC. From Alexandria, where I read his astronomical date was recorded from.

Map25103950bc.jpg

Blow me down, here's Venus and Mercury rising just after the Sun rises. This imo could definitely point to the same thing that is being mentioned about Mercury or Venus beginning the cycle of constellations, the first record of the complete constellation cycle, starting at this point. With the Sun on the Autumnal Equinox as well, or just past it actually.

This could be a date seen as creation imo, once some sort of construct begins in this form.

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scaliger's date of creation is 3950BC wasn't it? Sunday the 25th October to be precise.

Greiksche Jaartelling 7347, which would be 5508 BC (7347 - 1839) is the older date from the list Abramelin had in Post #9296. 5788 (3949) shown as "Creation of the world according to our time reckoning", doesn't mean it's the oldest date, just its from a more current reckoning of the calendar. In short, you can't have a date 1559 years BEFORE Creation.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greiksche Jaartelling 7347, which would be 5508 BC (7347 - 1839) is the older date from the list Abramelin had in Post #9296. 5788 (3949) shown as "Creation of the world according to our time reckoning", doesn't mean it's the oldest date, just its from a more current reckoning of the calendar. In short, you can't have a date 1559 years BEFORE Creation.

cormac

That's all fine but you said: "If something similar was done to Scaliger's date of Creation c.5508,"

I don't think that is HIS date. Which it sounded like you are saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all fine but you said: "If something similar was done to Scaliger's date of Creation c.5508,"

I don't think that is HIS date. Which it sounded like you are saying.

I see it as his, in as much as it's on the list and he's neither left it off nor has he explained it. It has to be there for some reason, and it makes no sense to have a date for creation BEFORE creation.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it as his, in as much as it's on the list and he's neither left it off nor has he explained it. It has to be there for some reason, and it makes no sense to have a date for creation BEFORE creation.

cormac

OK, it appears you are correct in assuming it is his.

5508 BC Septuagint, Alexandrine source:Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609)

http://www.rundetaarn.dk/engelsk/observatorium/start.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He actually got that above date from the Alexandrine sources of the Septuagint, to clarify.

His own date remains 3950 BC Scaliger, Isaacson

Same link as above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all fine but you said: "If something similar was done to Scaliger's date of Creation c.5508,"

I don't think that is HIS date. Which it sounded like you are saying.

I think it's a number in Julian Period, not years BC or absolute years, and that is where many people make mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that stuff with Nostradamus was interesting. Maybe I am prophetic, lol, I bought a book the other week on Nostradamus thinking it might have clues in it about OLB related astrology. It's not just his predicitions but much info on him in general and old pictures, I'll have a better look at it now. That dressing down Scaliger gave him was a good one.

In one of my former posts I repeated what I said in December last year, that I thought that the OLB "WAK" was a sound some birds produced in one of Nostradamus Centuries.

Heh, I read his book (in Dutch) like 20 or more years ago, and I was wrong.

The sound thse birds made was not to be found in his Centuries, but in his letter to Henry II:

Before these events, some rare birds will cry in the air: Hui, Hui and some time later will vanish.

Epistle to Henry II/see next link, page 135:

http://books.google.nl/books?id=XQdY0lGFJX0C&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=Before+these+events+many+rare+birds+will+cry+in+the+air.+-now&source=bl&ots=7xvrrRrc-z&sig=SfUwGcaBil5ocGCr_nMehEnyz9Y&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=9EkIT5y7OsTpOanujbgB&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Before%20these%20events%20many%20rare%20birds%20will%20cry%20in%20the%20air.%20-now&f=true

Not "wak, wak", but "hui hui", lol.

Btw, "hui" means "today", and pronounced something like "wheeee!!"

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is unbelievable, lol (I tend to say that a lot in this thread).

Many years ago I bought Overwijn's book about the OLB in Leiden, in a antique-books market in the old Pieterskerk (Church of St. Pieter) for about 75 guilders (like 35 euros).

Just now I found out Josephus Justus Scaliger is (re)buried there. His tombstone is located in the baptistery of the church.

Nothing important, but still my jaw dropped to the floor.

"Scaliger was buried in the Vrouwekerk. This church was demolished in 1819 and the tombs of Scaliger and Clusius got a place in the Pieterskerk. His tombstone can be found in the baptistery."

http://www.pieterskerk.com/en/building/floor-plan/josephus-justus-scaliger/'>http://www.pieterskerk.com/en/building/floor-plan/josephus-justus-scaliger/

pieterskerk.JPG

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieterskerk_(Leiden)

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/netherlands/leiden-pieterskerk

And when that was no special coincidence, then read this:

In Leiden, the Pieterskerk can be seen from afar. According to some, the tower (built in the sixteenth century) is approximately 100 meters high and could be seen from the North Sea giving it the name 'Coningh der See ' (King of the Sea).

http://www.pieterskerk.com/en/building/

King of the Sea? Anyone? Seaking, perhaps?

This thread is not only huge, it starts turning me nuts, lol.

(edit: the tower collapsed in 1512, but anyway)

.

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, it gets better.

What is very close to this Pieterskerk? It's de "Leidse Burcht", aka "Lydasburcht" from the OLB:

Pieterskerk_LeidseBurgh.jpg

Here a large pic of how it once looked:

http://www.kastelenbeeldbank.nl/_menu/google/largepic.htm?Zuid-Holland,LeidseBurcht-Leiden,Smids-33-LeidseBurcht.jpg#picture

And here some info in English of who lived where and when and why in Leiden:

http://leidenuniv.academia.edu/KaspervanOmmen/Books/177541/IO._GROLIERII_and_AMICORUM._A_Stroll_through_Leidens_Book_History

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a number in Julian Period, not years BC or absolute years, and that is where many people make mistakes.

That would appear to create more problems since the Julian Period (Scaliger) starts at 4713 BC (which is before Scaliger's Creation date of 3950 BC) making 1839 AD the year 6552 of the Julian Period. Going back 5508 years from that puts the date at c.3669 BC, which would then show a date after Creation listed before it, while every other date is presumably in chronological order.

cormac

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.