[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood

[Otharus]

The passage you cite makes a distinction between All-father and All-feeder, and draws an analogy between the two, but it does not reject All-father, which is also used elsewhere.

It does not, only in the known translations.

Read the original.

The Fryan word for "father" is TÁT.

[Tony S.]

It does not, only in the known translations.

Read the original.

The Fryan word for "father" is TÁT.

That was just one of their words for father. They also had foder, feder etc.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=father&searchmode=none

I suggest, again, that you are indulging in intellectual dishonesty because of religious bias.

[Abramelin]

Another one I gotta agree on, even though I know it irks Abe. I have sounded like a broken record on here the whole time saying the writing is not Dutch, it just seems that way.

Old Frisian is closer to Old English, agreed.

But that is not the language used in the OLB.

I have showed several times in this thread that I could use Old Dutch to translate OLB text; then you get something that is very similar to the original text, and understandable to me.

[Otharus]

I consider the OLB to be an extremely important source, but I don't regard it as holy writ, with every word of it literally true. It's a historical chronicle, and must be judged against other sources, such as archaeology, accordingly. It happens to stand up very well.

I also don't regard every word as literally true and I think nobody should.

But that does not answer my question.

I respect that you like to believe that the Fryas or old-Frisians were 'pagans', but the OLB clearly suggests they were not. If you present your theory as fact here as you keep doing, you will need to provide proof from either other sources or archaeology. Explain how you have come to your conclusion.

[Abramelin]

Goffe Jensma's theory about Haverschmidt is just that - a theory. No one had heard of him in connection with the OLB until Jensma came out with it a few years ago, and yet now, with not a single piece of proof, just speculation upon speculation, he is regularly cited as a co-author.

You should read about Joost Halbertsma in this thread. Personally I think he is the main suspect, of not the only suspect.

[Tony S.]

Old Frisian is closer to Old English, agreed.

But that is not the language used in the OLB.

I have showed several times in this thread that I could use Old Dutch to translate OLB text; then you get something that is very similar to the original text, and understandable to me.

A very good proportion of it is also understandable to any native English speaker, with a little patience. And that's without having to translate it at all.

[Otharus]

I suggest, again, that you are indulging in intellectual dishonesty because of religious bias.

I could easily accuse you of doing the same, but that would not help the discussion, would it?

By the way...

The German translation of "the World" is "die Welt"; feminine

[Tony S.]

I also don't regard every word as literally true and I think nobody should.

But that does not answer my question.

I respect that you like to believe that the Fryas or old-Frisians were 'pagans', but the OLB clearly suggests they were not. If you present your theory as fact here as you keep doing, you will need to provide proof from either other sources or archaeology. Explain how you have come to your conclusion.

The OLB contradicts itself, as indeed we should expect, if it was written by multiple writers over a long period.

It is not a "theory" that the ancient Frisians were Pagans. It's a historical fact. English missionary bishops went there to convert them, but had little success. It wasn't until Christianity was imposed on them by Charlemagne that they became Christians.

http://alkman1.blogspot.com/2007/03/pagan-frisia.html

A famous Frisian god was Fosite, the law-giver, who later became the Norse Forseti. Other gods and goddesses included those who also, not surprisingly, turn up in Anglo-Saxon contexts, such as Woden (Wodin), and Frigg (Frya).

You should read about Joost Halbertsma in this thread. Personally I think he is the main suspect, of not the only suspect.

Can you link to the relevant page, please?

[Abramelin]

A very good proportion of it is also understandable to any native English speaker, with a little patience. And that's without having to translate it at all.

The same is true using present day Dutch: I can understand whole sentences without the need for a translation.

For the rest I can do with the help of Old Dutch, and I am left with some words I don't understand immediately.

But those words become understandable when you use German or French or mangled Latin.

[Tony S.]

I could easily accuse you of doing the same, but that would not help the discussion, would it?

By the way...

The German translation of "the World" is "die Welt"; feminine

And in English the same noun "world" in neuter. Like most nouns in English. The OLB clearly classifies Wr-alda as male, however, calling him All-father and using masculine pronouns throughout.

[Tony S.]

The same is true using present day Dutch: I can understand whole sentences without the need for a translation.

For the rest I can do with the help of Old Dutch, and I am left with some words I don't understand immediately.

But those words become understandable when you use German or French or mangled Latin.

Anyone familiar with Old and Middle English literature understands a great deal of it. Even the word-order, which is unlike modern English in certain respects, sounds like Middle English and therefore has an archaic ring to English ears, but still perfectly understandable.

[Abramelin]

Can you link to the relevant page, please?

Try page 126 of this thread (about Halbertsma, and the Rostringen dialect).

.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Abramelin

[Tony S.]

Try page 126 of this thread (about Halbertsma, and the Rostringen dialect).

.

Interesting, certainly, but hardly conclusive. It's just another theory, really.

[Abramelin]

Interesting, certainly, but hardly conclusive. It's just another theory, really.

The Rodin site I linked to on that page is in Dutch only, and that is a shame.

But if you could read Dutch, I am quite sure you will at least start doubting after you read it all.

====

It has nothing to do with the topic, but I found it quite hilarious that Otharus branded you as a hoaxer after reading the first 2 of your posts, but - like you - thinks that the wealth of info about Halbertsma is too inconclusive to brand Halbertsma as main suspect.

[Tony S.]

The Rodin site I linked to on that page is in Dutch only, and that is a shame.

But if you could read Dutch, I am quite sure you will at least start doubting after you read it all.

====

It has nothing to do with the topic, but I found it quite hilarious that Otharus branded you as a hoaxer after reading the first 2 of your posts, but - like you - thinks that the wealth of info about Halbertsma is too inconclusive to brand Halbertsma as main suspect.

Start doubting what? I have always maintained that the current manuscript is probably 19th century. The important question is, how much is based on earlier material?

[Abramelin]

Start doubting what? I have always maintained that the current manuscript is probably 19th century. The important question is, how much is based on earlier material?

How much is based on earlier material?

Well, most if not everything: Tacitus, Strabo, Pliny, Pytheas, Frisian chroniclers, German(ic) and Nordic legends, Frisian legends, the Bible, and so on .... all available to the 19th century writers of the OLB.

[Tony S.]

How much is based on earlier material?

Well, most if not everything: Tacitus, Strabo, Pliny, Pytheas, Frisian chroniclers, German(ic) and Nordic legends, Frisian legends, the Bible, and so on .... all available to the 19th century writers of the OLB.

How about old manuscripts kept by the Over de Linden family?

[Abramelin]

How about old manuscripts kept by the Over de Linden family?

Not very likely.

Unless you mean copies of old works by Tacitus and so on.

[Tony S.]

Not very likely.

Unless you mean copies of old works by Tacitus and so on.

I think at least some of the OLB is based on genuinely old manuscripts.

[Abramelin]

I think at least some of the OLB is based on genuinely old manuscripts.

Of course, lol: Tacitus, Strabo, Homer, Pliny, Frisian chroniclers, and so on.

The rest was fabricated around the works of these people.

It's like a Tolkien who studied ancient languages and mythology, and then created his "Lord of the Rings".

[cormac mac airt]

Start doubting what? I have always maintained that the current manuscript is probably 19th century. The important question is, how much is based on earlier material?

If this is really that much in question, then a better question (IMO) would be 'how can anyone attempt to claim it as an historically accurate documentation of events for much of the last 4200 years? Yourself aside, others HAVE attempted to make that claim in this thread. A claim that has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

cormac

[Tony S.]

Of course, lol: Tacitus, Strabo, Homer, Pliny, Frisian chroniclers, and so on.

The rest was fabricated around the works of these people.

It's like a Tolkien who studied ancient languages and mythology, and then created his "Lord of the Rings".

Have you spoken to members of the Over de Linden family?

[Abramelin]

Good one.

No, I didn't.

Did YOU??

[Tony S.]

Good one.

No, I didn't.

Did YOU??

Yes. As I explained at length in my first book, Water Witches. Perhaps you should read it.

[Abramelin]

Yes. As I explained at length in my first book, Water Witches. Perhaps you should read it.

I am very sorry, I didnt read your book.

Well, could you please tell us what they told you??