[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

[Knul]

Don't worry, it gets better.

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

Here a large pic of how it once looked:

http://www.kastelenb...cht.jpg#picture

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

http://leidenuniv.ac...ns_Book_History

Sorry, this is not the Pieterskerk, but the Hooglandse kerk. Btw: I am a born Leidenaar.

[Abramelin]

Sorry, this is not the Pieterskerk, but the Hooglandse kerk. Btw: I am a born Leidenaar.

LOL, I just came back from late-night shopping, and knew I had to edit my post. But I'm too late.

But, although I am not from Leiden, the Pieterskerk and the Leidse Burght are not far apart, right?

+++

EDIT:

Nevermind, I already found it:

Pieterskerk/bottom arrow, Leidse Burcht/top arrow (and the Hooglandse Kerk (Church) is the blue building on the right, the one I mistook for the Pieterskerk)

http://www.nikhef.nl/~louk/LKW/PICS/blau-leiden.jpg

----

Nothing to do with this topic at all, but if any foreigner here ever wants to visit the Netherlands some time, go to Leiden. Much of Leiden still looks 'medieval' (the center) and I always loved to wander around in that ancient city. Same thing with Deventer and Delft, btw.

And if you are a guy in love, take your woman to the Haarlemmerstraat, the longest shopping lane in the Netherlands, and also in the center of Leiden. I know, that's what I always did. Your wife/girlfriend will love you for it, heh (your wallet will not).

[End of tourist commercial, lol]

.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

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

Cormac, I believe you.

But Scaliger never ever suggested that the start of his Julian calendar was equal to the date of Creation; it was just the point where several cycles had their beginning. You'd think that the start of the Julian calendar would be equal to the date of Creation.... and so do I.

Well, I never read online that he thought these dates to be about the same thing.

[cormac mac airt]

Cormac, I believe you.

But Scaliger never ever suggested that the start of his Julian calendar was equal to the date of Creation; it was just the point where several cycles had their beginning. You'd think that the start of the Julian calendar would be equal to the date of Creation.... and so do I.

Well, I never read online that he thought these dates to be about the same thing.

No, but it does rather call into question to what extent he believed his 3950 BC date was the date of Creation when he'd started calculations (to be later known as the start of the Julian Period) that was 763 years older. It's not really suggestive, to me, that he had much faith in his own calculations.

cormac

[Abramelin]

It's a bit late now, but Scaliger was much into astrology.

He may have been a true genius, but he was also a man of his time.

[Knul]

LOL, I just came back from late-night shopping, and knew I had to edit my post. But I'm too late.

But, although I am not from Leiden, the Pieterskerk and the Leidse Burght are not far apart, right?

+++

EDIT:

Nevermind, I already found it:

Pieterskerk/bottom arrow, Leidse Burcht/top arrow (and the Hooglandse Kerk (Church) is the blue building on the right, the one I mistook for the Pieterskerk)

http://www.nikhef.nl...blau-leiden.jpg

----

Nothing to do with this topic at all, but if any foreigner here ever wants to visit the Netherlands some time, go to Leiden. Much of Leiden still looks 'medieval' (the center) and I always loved to wander around in that ancient city. Same thing with Deventer and Delft, btw.

And if you are a guy in love, take your woman to the Haarlemmerstraat, the longest shopping lane in the Netherlands, and also in the center of Leiden. I know, that's what I always did. Your wife/girlfriend will love you for it, heh (your wallet will not).

[End of tourist commercial, lol]

.

In the blue circle was my elementary school opposite to the University building. As I was the only student of doctorate Slavonics I had my lessons frequently in the Hortus Botanicus or with the profs at home. My daughter lived as a student next to the Hema on the Haarlemmerstraat.

[The Puzzler]

----

Nothing to do with this topic at all, but if any foreigner here ever wants to visit the Netherlands some time, go to Leiden. Much of Leiden still looks 'medieval' (the center) and I always loved to wander around in that ancient city. Same thing with Deventer and Delft, btw.

And if you are a guy in love, take your woman to the Haarlemmerstraat, the longest shopping lane in the Netherlands, and also in the center of Leiden. I know, that's what I always did. Your wife/girlfriend will love you for it, heh (your wallet will not).

[End of tourist commercial, lol]

.

I'd like to visit the Netherlands and Friesland since all this, I can't get enough of reading all about the both places and watched a great show called Mega Structures about the dykes and other engineering feats of the Dutch, you guys rock in that department.

One day I will, maybe not too soon but when my time comes and I am financially able to, I will visit you people and your countries, I will remember what you suggested above Abe, first on my list.

Edited January 8, 2012 by The Puzzler

[Van Gorp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Good morning also for you Abramelin.

Ah, the internet is a world wide web :-)

You seem to learned indeed from the internet.

And I know we all know that truth is first ridiculed, afterwards seen as a possibility and eventually taken for granted.

Scaliger's manipulations can compete with any labeled 'hoax'.

It's only far more widely excepted to be seen as hoax; even without knowing :-))))

Now, this sounded maybe more pedantic than I wished.

Sorry then, but Scaliger himself was quite pedantic :-)

Scaliger was amazed by the wide spread literacy of the people, when he imigrated in the low lands. We do not need to take lessons of him concerning our literaly past, because a language was firstly and above all 'spoken' with the tongue.

He (and others) deny indeed that mother tongue as the origin, and force their own 'his story' to all indiginious people in the form of 'scolar' and 'scientific' study.

Most of the sources of that so called scientific study is written down in one century, and take not more than some bookcases (mostly attributed to a selected set of authors like Plato, Seneca, Caesar, ...). All the rest that followed are comments on the same.

[The Puzzler]

Good morning also for you Abramelin.

Ah, the internet is a world wide web :-)

You seem to learned indeed from the internet.

And I know we all know that truth is first ridiculed, afterwards seen as a possibility and eventually taken for granted.

Scaliger's manipulations can compete with any labeled 'hoax'.

It's only far more widely excepted to be seen as hoax; even without knowing :-))))

Now, this sounded maybe more pedantic than I wished.

Sorry then, but Scaliger himself was quite pedantic :-)

Scaliger was amazed by the wide spread literacy of the people, when he imigrated in the low lands. We do not need to take lessons of him concerning our literaly past, because a language was firstly and above all 'spoken' with the tongue.

He (and others) deny indeed that mother tongue as the origin, and force their own 'his story' to all indiginious people in the form of 'scolar' and 'scientific' study.

Most of the sources of that so called scientific study is written down in one century, and take not more than some bookcases (mostly attributed to a selected set of authors like Plato, Seneca, Caesar, ...). All the rest that followed are comments on the same.

Do you think the language of the Low lands, where? (Antwerpian Brabantic)... is an early original language of the area? What do you think of Frisian? Could it be in your opinion a precursor to Latin?

Is this your general view, that Becanus may have been correct?

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

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

Sorry for so many questions but I like to clarify the views of others here. Just a brief run down of your view on the above would be fab thanks.

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

We refer to this Frisian Dictionary alot, well I do, and I find the words extremely as said: the words are so basically made up of smaller compounds I find it hard to think many words came from anywhere else - you just can't get these smaller compound words and meanings in any other language that make up the word, eg. Saturn - sa-turn = as it turns....that kind of thing, I've been able to find many, many words that just seem to be originally from the Frisian language, as per the dictionary.

http://koeblergerhard.de/afrieswbhinw.html

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

Though Goropius had admirers (among them Abraham Ortelius and Richard Hakluyt), his etymologies have been considered "linguistic chauvinism," and Leibniz coined the term "goropism" to mean "absurd etymology." Justus Lipsius and Hugo Grotius discounted Goropius's linguistic theories. "Never have I read greater nonsense," the scholar Joseph Scaliger wrote of Goropius's etymologies.

However, Goropius's work precedes that of William Jones, the “discoverer” of the Indo-European language family, and though replete with eccentric and ridiculous etymologies, nevertheless can be considered a foundation for the field of historical linguistics.

"eccentric and ridiculous etymologies" - I like this guy.

Edited January 8, 2012 by The Puzzler

[Abramelin]

Good morning also for you Abramelin.

Ah, the internet is a world wide web :-)

You seem to learned indeed from the internet.

And I know we all know that truth is first ridiculed, afterwards seen as a possibility and eventually taken for granted.

Scaliger's manipulations can compete with any labeled 'hoax'.

It's only far more widely excepted to be seen as hoax; even without knowing :-))))

Now, this sounded maybe more pedantic than I wished.

Sorry then, but Scaliger himself was quite pedantic :-)

Scaliger was amazed by the wide spread literacy of the people, when he imigrated in the low lands. We do not need to take lessons of him concerning our literaly past, because a language was firstly and above all 'spoken' with the tongue.

He (and others) deny indeed that mother tongue as the origin, and force their own 'his story' to all indiginious people in the form of 'scolar' and 'scientific' study.

Most of the sources of that so called scientific study is written down in one century, and take not more than some bookcases (mostly attributed to a selected set of authors like Plato, Seneca, Caesar, ...). All the rest that followed are comments on the same.

Van Gorp,

You might want to reread this post of mine, because Becanus wasn't alone in creating a 'grand history' for his people; it was kind of a national passtime to create nationalistic fantasies about one's past:

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

Well, read here why:

(...)

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

fantastic combinations were made. Speculations about the origin of various

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

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

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

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

were the great archetypal stories with which imaginative historians always

tried to connect annals of their own peoples.39

In England, historians contended that the English Kingdom was founded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and a vagina nationum, from which victorious nations have repeatedly

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

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

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

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

Sweden was the oldest realm on earth.44

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

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

Scoticarum Historia.45 Another outstanding representative of a critical attitude

was the brilliant Joseph Justus Scaliger, who ruthlessly attacked the

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

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

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

weight of their own absurdity.46

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

.

[granpa]

I wouldnt place a whole lot of faith in the numbers given in genesis.

my studies indicate that the numbers are little more than pointers in the right general direction.

[Abramelin]

I wouldnt place a whole lot of faith in the numbers given in genesis.

my studies indicate that the numbers are little more than pointers in the right general direction.

We are only trying to find out who may have used what numbers to calculate a date for either a (or the Biblical) flood or the disasters as described in the OLB.

If the Biblical numbers and/or someone's interpretations of these numbers and/or mistakes while using them takes us to 2194 BC - which is what I think we are heading to - then we will have a source outside the OLB for 2194 BC.

.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

We are only trying to find out who may have used what numbers to calculate a date for either a (or the Biblical) flood or the disasters as described in the OLB.

If the Biblical numbers and/or someone's interpretations of these numbers and/or mistakes while using them takes us to 2194 BC - which is what I think we are heading to - then we will have a source outside the OLB for 2194 BC.

.

And I think we've shown that to pretty much be the case.

cormac

[Abramelin]

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.

.

I found an older source with this difference of 1756 years:

Page 21 and on:

Historische Jaarboeken Van Oud En Nieuw Friesland: Van De Vroegste ..., Volume 1 - Foeke Sjoerds / 1768

http://books.google.nl/books?id=WaQ6AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA519&lpg=PA519&dq=historische+jaarboeken+van+oud+en+nieuw+Friesland,+van+de+vroegste+...,+Volume+Door+Foeke+Sjoerds&source=bl&ots=a9vcXtwnsr&sig=X07nxaVMtIln7Sz-fTD_76_cRUk&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=X8oJT6XRM4GUOrPhnbUB&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote (translated):

Adel, Friso's father, is here said to have been a son of Peleg, in whose days the Tower Of Babel was built. The building did not take place later then 100 years after the Flood; that is 1757 years after the Creation of the World;

That sentence is a bit confusing (like it is in the Dutch original): does it say the Flood happened 1757 years after Creation and that the Tower of Babel was built 100 years after that, or... that the building of the Tower of Babel took place 1757 years after the Flood?

Edited January 8, 2012 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

I found an older source with this difference of 1756 years:

Page 21 and on:

Historische Jaarboeken Van Oud En Nieuw Friesland: Van De Vroegste ..., Volume 1 - Foeke Sjoerds / 1768

http://books.google.nl/books?id=WaQ6AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA519&lpg=PA519&dq=historische+jaarboeken+van+oud+en+nieuw+Friesland,+van+de+vroegste+...,+Volume+Door+Foeke+Sjoerds&source=bl&ots=a9vcXtwnsr&sig=X07nxaVMtIln7Sz-fTD_76_cRUk&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=X8oJT6XRM4GUOrPhnbUB&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote (translated):

Adel, Friso's father, is here said to have been a son of Peleg, in whose days the Tower Of Babel was built. The building did not take place later then 100 years after the Flood; that is 1757 years after the Creation of the World;

That sentence is a bit confusing (like it is in the Dutch original): does it say the Flood happened 1757 years after Creation and that the Tower of Babel was built 100 years after that, or... that the building of the Tower of Babel took place 1757 years after the Flood?

While I can't read Dutch, from an English understanding it means that the building of the Tower of Babel happened 1757 years after Creation and 100 years after the Flood. Meaning that the flood happened 1657 years after Creation.

cormac

[Abramelin]

While I can't read Dutch, from an English understanding it means that the building of the Tower of Babel happened 1757 years after Creation and 100 years after the Flood. Meaning that the flood happened 1657 years after Creation.

cormac

I can't blame you for not understanding Dutch; if this thread had been about some ancient Scottish Gaelic or Irish Gaelic manuscript, perhaps all I could do is comment on things other than the language used.

But I know how the Dutch constructed their sentences ages ago, and it is often confusing to someone - like me - from the present.

It's about recognizing "main clause" and "subordinate clause" (Dutch: "hoofdzinnen en bijzinnen").

(I had to Google that, heh).

Btw: you ever read a book written by Gurdjieff? That guy was able to create sentences that were a page long. But hey, he tried to be mystical and enlightened and all that. And that means nothing but, "write in a way no one will understand you, and when they admit they don't get it, tell them they are too dumb or too prejudiced to understand."

.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

I can't blame you for not understanding Dutch; if this thread had been about some ancient Scottish Gaelic or Irish Gaelic manuscript, perhaps all I could do is comment on things other than the language used.

But I know how the Dutch constructed their sentences ages ago, and it is often confusing to someone - like me - from the present.

It's about recognizing "main clause" and "subordinate clause" (Dutch: "hoofzinnen en bijzinnen").

(I had to Google that, heh)

So it looks like we have not only a more modern explaination for the 2193/2194 BC date but also at least 2 possibilities for the 100/101 year differences between 1656 and 1756/1757. It's not exactly looking good for the claim that the date of 2193/2194 BC was based on ancient knowledge.

cormac

[lilthor]

Nothing to do with this topic at all, but if any foreigner here ever wants to visit the Netherlands some time, go to Leiden.

If I can ever get back to the Netherlands, this is exactly how I will spend my time.

The last time I was there (years ago), I thought Dutch culture was best learned in coffee shops in Amsterdam.

I was wrong. And when I got home I sure didn't feel like I had learned a damn thing!

[Abramelin]

So it looks like we have not only a more modern explaination for the 2193/2194 BC date but also at least 2 possibilities for the 100/101 year differences between 1656 and 1756/1757. It's not exactly looking good for the claim that the date of 2193/2194 BC was based on ancient knowledge.

cormac

It's most probably all based on someone not really getting the message, or someone being nearsighted, hah.

I didn't know what to think of what I read, maybe someone a 150 years ago felt the same, and just guessed.

[Abramelin]

If I can ever get back to the Netherlands, this is exactly how I will spend my time.

The last time I was there (years ago), I thought Dutch culture was best learned in coffee shops in Amsterdam.

I was wrong. And when I got home I sure didn't feel like I had learned a damn thing!

What you actually learned is that "Amsterdam" is not equal to "the Netherlands".

When I was abroad, people always asked me about Amsterdam.

I responded with, "I'm not gay, I am not really Jewish, I am not a hippie, I don't live on wellfare, I am not a hobo".

[cormac mac airt]

It's most probably all based on someone not really getting the message, or someone being nearsighted, hah.

I didn't know what to think of what I read, maybe someone a 150 years ago felt the same, and just guessed.

Most likely, IMO.

cormac

[Abramelin]

On the internet one can find nearly anything, that's what I always say. You 'just' have to know how and where to look...

But nowhere have I found what date for the Flood Scaliger actually used.

Then I vaguely remembered - from my time before internet - that I once bought a book or books from some guy who had studied ages or large cycles in time, based on astronomy.

Well, that was a bingo: I appear to have 3 books - which I had never read after I bought them around 2004 - written by a Dutch writer: Wim Zitman.

And what are his books about? Nostradamus, Scaliger, astronomy and astrology (and those cycles in time)!!

OK, to make a long story short: according to him Scaliger used this date for the Flood: 2520 BC...

http://www.zitman.org/horusenigma/recensiesreacties.html

http://www.frontierpublishing.nl/oavn_art1.htm

http://www.worldcat.org/title/kosmische-slinger-der-tijden/oclc/66134891

http://www.bol.com/nl/c/nederlandse-boeken/wim-zitman/48868/index.html

Egypt : "image of heaven" : the planisphere and the lost cradle

Auteur: Wim H Zitman

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Willem H. Zitman was born in 1941 and worked as a building engineer and project manager. For more than 30 years, he studied astronomy, astrology, and ancient chronology. For the last 17 years, he has applied these studies to Egyptology. The author of one book in English and three books in Dutch, he lives near Amsterdam and travels to Egypt frequently."

http://www.amazon.com/Egypt-Image-Heaven-Planisphere-Cradle/dp/1931882541%3FSubscriptionId%3D0JRA4J6WAV0RTAZVS6R2%26tag%3Dworldcat2-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D1931882541

.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Abramelin

[Knul]

s. http://books.google....ndvloed&f=false p. 200. on the mistakes Scaliger made.

s. http://books.google....ndvloed&f=false p. 1242.

s. http://books.google....ndvloed&f=false. Correction of Scaliger by Vossius.p.265.

So, the dates Scaliger mentions, are questioned in the 17th century.

Biblical chronology: http://www.bijbelaantekeningen.nl/bn/?View=Subjects&action=366

Edited January 9, 2012 by Knul

[Van Gorp]

Do you think the language of the Low lands, where? (Antwerpian Brabantic)... is an early original language of the area? What do you think of Frisian? Could it be in your opinion a precursor to Latin?

Is this your general view, that Becanus may have been correct?

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

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

Sorry for so many questions but I like to clarify the views of others here. Just a brief run down of your view on the above would be fab thanks.

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

We refer to this Frisian Dictionary alot, well I do, and I find the words extremely as said: the words are so basically made up of smaller compounds I find it hard to think many words came from anywhere else - you just can't get these smaller compound words and meanings in any other language that make up the word, eg. Saturn - sa-turn = as it turns....that kind of thing, I've been able to find many, many words that just seem to be originally from the Frisian language, as per the dictionary.

http://koeblergerhard.de/afrieswbhinw.html

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

Though Goropius had admirers (among them Abraham Ortelius and Richard Hakluyt), his etymologies have been considered "linguistic chauvinism," and Leibniz coined the term "goropism" to mean "absurd etymology." Justus Lipsius and Hugo Grotius discounted Goropius's linguistic theories. "Never have I read greater nonsense," the scholar Joseph Scaliger wrote of Goropius's etymologies.

However, Goropius's work precedes that of William Jones, the “discoverer” of the Indo-European language family, and though replete with eccentric and ridiculous etymologies, nevertheless can be considered a foundation for the field of historical linguistics.

"eccentric and ridiculous etymologies" - I like this guy.

Hi Puzzler,

I think in general I have sympathetic feelings to the view of Becanus when he expresses his belief in the existence of a quasi pan-European language system that predates Latin and Greek 'culture'&language. Common because it originated by the migration of the same people (root-tribe?), but with local differences as they settled in different times/regions. The word "barbarians" is used to define all what was non Roman, while cultural level could be far greater than their own.

A language spoken by local people, which stands on its own and lays on the basis of many Latin/Greek words, not the contrary as we are told/learned in general.

I haven't gone that far to believe that Adam&Eve were living in Brabant and talking Kempsch :-) But who am I ...

I that sense, I can fully understand Abramelin (see one of his previous posts) that he points to the fact that a kind of 'nationalism' can come forth as Becanus saying: "It was Brabant that was the core" or Frysians that say "It all originated in Friesland".

But what for me seems to be important is the fact that in these language variations, words can be explained much better than the Latin counterparts.

At the end of the search you'll see in Latin etymology many cases where 'origin' is unknown. While the origin explained likewise Becanus, Schrieck, Scioppius, ... goes further in understanding why words are the words they are.

Another fact that supports this feeling, is the Latin rise in Europe involved in many cases the suppression of local culture. A great tool to alienate people from their own background is twisting their views of their own history by twisting the origin of language and events.

I'm fully aware of the giggles and laughs of the 'scientific establishment' and others when talking about Goropian etymology. But I'm also aware what a fixed idea that is repeated from childhood on, can do with even the most inquisitive minds.

Chearfull to see that we don't censor ourselves a priori to fit the mainstream views.

Only my opinion ...

[Abramelin]

s. http://books.google....ndvloed&f=false p. 200. on the mistakes Scaliger made.

s. http://books.google....ndvloed&f=false p. 1242.

s. http://books.google....ndvloed&f=false. Correction of Scaliger by Vossius.p.265.

So, the dates Scaliger mentions, are questioned in the 17th century.

Biblical chronology: http://www.bijbelaantekeningen.nl/bn/?View=Subjects&action=366

The point is not whether he was right or wrong, or how he cooked up those numbers, the point is that maybe it were his numbers that ended up in the OLB.

And what none of your links seem to say is that Scaliger based a large part of his calculations on astronomy; so using only the Bible you will never arrive at his numbers.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Abramelin