Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

[Abramelin]

So your conclusion is that this was the only word for priest in all of northern Europe? BS.

They had different terms for the same concepts, just like we do.

Example:

God in Icelandic can be "Guð" or "Drottinn" (the latter usually being translated as "Lord").

This last word is also known from old-german:

"Te hwi thu mik so farlieti, lievo drohtin" (anonymous ca. 830 CE) = why do you abandon me, dear God/ Lord?

The <h> before a <t> will have sounded like our <ch>, compare "alomahtig""; allmighty (dutch: almachtig).

"Liobo druhtin min" (Otfried von Weißenburg, ca. 865 CE) = my dear God/ Lord

In OLB:

JEF THIN DROCHTEN THÀN SÁ BJUSTRE GOD IS (p.35)

If your god is quite so good

TACH ALSA NIL.T VS DROCHTEN NAVT (p.36)

But our god does not want that that

THENE ALLERVRSTE DROCHTEN (p.37)

the supreme god

... etcetera.

The word was sometimes translated by Ottema as "gedrocht" (monster), which was probably (in that context) how the Fryas thought about the gods of their enemies. But Minerva also referred to Wralda als DROCHTEN. So the meaning of words sometimes change.

OLB is much more complex than you imagine. You'll have to do better than superficially scan it and then create pet theories that you stubbornly stick to.

In short, there are many more indications (and they are much stronger) that OLB's language is authentic, than that it's a modern fabrication. Even the specialists back then couldn't imagine anyone who would have been capable of creating anything of its kind.

Your examples are desperate and inutile attempts to prove that OLB is fake.

My "conclusion" is that they very probably did NOT use the word "prester".

Btw, show me where in Nordic countries they used the word "prester" before their conversion to Christianity.

You can't.

And you still evaded to answer my question why Presbyter John was also called Prester John.

.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Abramelin

[Ott]

...show me where in Nordic countries they used the word "prester" before their conversion to Christianity. You can't.

Lack of accepted sources?

I didn't look for it as I don't feel I need to.

I fail to see the relevance.

You ignore the fact that praetor and praeses have almost the same meaning and are much older than your church latin "presbyter".

And you still evaded to answer my question why Presbyter John was also called Prester John.

Because presbyter was a newer variety of the word. The words co-existed.

~

So after years of discussing this is the best you have?

"OLB has to be fake, because the word PRESTER could not have existed that early."

Get real.

Edited December 27, 2013 by gestur

[Abramelin]

Lack of accepted sources?

I didn't look for it as I don't feel I need to.

I fail to see the relevance.

You ignore the fact that praetor and praeses have almost the same meaning and are much older than your church latin "presbyter".

Because presbyter was a newer variety of the word. The words co-existed.

~

So after years of discussing this is the best you have?

"OLB has to be fake, because the word PRESTER could not have existed that early."

Get real.

To me. and many others, it is bloody obvious that "prester/priester" is derived from "presbyter". It follows the same etymological 'rule' as the derivation of "ho(s)tel" from Latin "hospitale"

You said the word "prester/priester" could have been derived from other, LATIN words (like you already posted several weeks ago), but then it still was not an Old Frisian/Old Germanic word. No Sir, I do not ignore anything.

The first time the word shows up in the OLB is when it talks about the time the Finnar, with their priestcaste the Magiar, show up coming from the east of Fryan territory, 101 years after the submergence of Aldland.

That episode was written down around 600 BCE. Well, if we have to believe the OLB, that is.

So, following your reasoning, the Fryans adopted a word from Latin, and made it their own while changing it somewhat. And that should have happened around 600 BCE, when no "priests" or "prester(s)" were around. And the Latin tribe were not that influential and numerous at that time; they occupied a territory the size of Greater London.

But wait, you suggested that "presbyter" was a maybe 'newer variety' of the word "prester". Are you really serious about that?? If so, then either you are not Otharus (which I doubt), or you are having some other problem.

==

"So after years of discussing this is the best you have?"

No, I have posted many other things you are happy to ignore because you assume only new arrivals to this thread are willing to read this never ending thread, and so you think you can make them believe I never posted other anachronisms.

Well, let's have another nice one: the word OLB word "cherke", in English, "church", or in Dutch "kerk".

==

Btw, it was no one else but Alewyn - who hates this wordfk almost as much as I do - who had a very reasonable and common-sense explanation for these anachronisms showing up in the OLB.

.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Abramelin

[NO-ID-EA]

Abe......I do not know what Alewyn has said could be a reason for modern words turning up in OLB.....but we are told that it was

completely re-copied out onto new paper in the 13th Century when it got wet , and started to rot .....

...if at this time the copyist knew some words like Gode (for priest ) had gone out of use

and his descendants would not understand the earlier meaning , why could he not have written in the newer more modern word

at this time , He would have been more interested that his descendants could read , and understand their history ,,

than he would care if the words were an exact copy of the original.....we just cant know for sure either way .

Edited December 29, 2013 by NO-ID-EA

[Knul]

but we are told that it was

completely re-copied out onto new paper in the 13th Century when it got wet , and started to rot .....

.

In the other story by Ocko Scharlensis the books got burnt and rescued from the flames.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Knul

[The Puzzler]

Well, let's have another nice one: the word OLB word "cherke", in English, "church", or in Dutch "kerk".

==

Btw, it was no one else but Alewyn - who hates this wordfk almost as much as I do - who had a very reasonable and common-sense explanation for these anachronisms showing up in the OLB.

.

The words may have existed in Fryan prior to them being adopted into other languages, such as Greek, when the Fryans lived there, they would have spread their language there and that's what the OLB is basically saying anyway.

The word cherke can also be Circe, a priestess in the Odyssey. This word is also an Old English word, circe, for church. The word and meaning (such as rulers house, domain of God/Goddess) eg: island of Circe - who actually lived in a mansion on the island, may have existed in North Europe - before it's usage as a Christian church from the Greeks.

The use of it in the OLB to mention Egypt having them, but they didn't have the idols in theirs, could also point to a usage prior to Christianity, since it's fairly obvious it's not meaning a Christian Church there.

I also agree with NO - that as it was copied out, more contemporary words may have been used.

And, for all we know the Fryans may not have been using an indigenous word, but rather, one that the Magy had used themselves, in describing the 'lords house' they worshipped in.

Edited December 30, 2013 by The Puzzler

[Ott]

Dr. No and Puzzler gave perfect replies, I can only add little to it:

To me. and many others, it is bloody obvious that "prester/priester" is derived from "presbyter". It follows the same etymological 'rule' as the derivation of "ho(s)tel" from Latin "hospitale"

It is indeed possible that prester is derived from presbyter, just like master (also used in OLB) from magister. But we don´t know when that happened. We have very little written records, and mainly from cultures that destroyed/ replaced the northern European indiginous ones. Oral language is much older and the varieties may have co-existed for a very long time, the shorter versions (prester, master) possibly being considered to be more vulgar. Who knows? Not we.

You said the word "prester/priester" could have been derived from other, LATIN words (...), but then it still was not an Old Frisian/Old Germanic word. No Sir, I do not ignore anything.

I never suggested derived from, but related to:

In my Latin dictionary I see other possible related words:

praeses = beschermer, verdediger, bestuurder, heerser, stadhouder, landvoogd (protector, ruler, etc)

praetor = consul, krijgsoverste, stadhouder (thus similar to praeses)

praetor maximus = dictator

~

No, I have posted many other things you are happy to ignore ...

If I ignored anything it must have been so insignificant that you have forgotten it yourself.

I think I refuted all of your attempts. None of them proved that OLB could not be authentic.

(...) Alewyn (...) had a very reasonable and common-sense explanation for these anachronisms showing up in the OLB.

I don´t remember, and again: there are no real anachronisms, only things that some people find hard to imagine.

But that only proves that their imagination is still limited.

Edited December 30, 2013 by gestur

[Knul]

But that only proves that their imagination is still limited.

I am still waiting for your proof, that the OLB is authentic without the words maybe, possibly, could be, etc., but with something we can verify.

[Ott]

I am still waiting for your proof, that the OLB is authentic without the words maybe, possibly, could be, etc., but with something we can verify.

One step at a time.

My main goal at the moment is to prove that the official OLB-doctrine is flawed in many ways, and that it is not at all evident that the OLB is fake.

In my recent videos, I demonstrate that the relevant authorities* misinform the Dutch/ Frisian public about the OLB.

* authorities:

1: Tresoar, the archive in Leeuwarden (Friesland) that guards the manuscript

2: prof. Goffe Jensma (Groningen University) and Frisian educational TV (11en30)

For now I am satisfied when people accept that OLB might be authentic and that further research is needed.

From there we can move on.

~

BTW, a new book with evidence will be published next spring.

Edited December 30, 2013 by gestur

[Ott]

With the help of No-Id-Ea (thanks again!), and others, the English full version is now improved.

Best wishes for the new year to all, and a jolly NY-eve.

[Knul]

Happy New Year to all of you.

[The Puzzler]

Happy New Year people!

Edited January 1, 2014 by The Puzzler

[NO-ID-EA]

Ditto... Knul , Puzz , VG and Gestur.....and here's hoping Abe has a better year........

[Ott]

Knul, in the introduction of your website you wrote:

"De echtheid staat niet meer ter discussie, maar de zoektocht naar de schrijver en het doel van het boek gaat onverminderd door."

Translated:

"The authenticity is no longer debated, but the search for the author and the purpose of the book is still going on."

What are we doing here?

Wasn´t Alewyn Raubenheimer´s book, that inspired this thread, an argument in favor of OLB´s authenticity?

If you would write that there are in fact people who believe that OLB is authentic, who even publish books about it, but that you don´t take them seriously, it would at least be honest.

But by simply pretending there is no discussion at all, you are lying.

[Ott]

Knul, on your website, you write:

"... het werkelijke bedrog [is] m.i. gepleegd door het duo Ernst Stadermann en Cornelis over de Linden [...] die meenden veel geld aan het manuscript of een uitgave daarvan te kunnen verdienen."

Translated:

"... the actual fraud [was] i.m.o committed by Stadermann and Over de Linden [...] who thought they could make a lot of money from the manuscript or a publication of it."

The facts are in strong contrast to your speculation, which undermines your whole theory:

Letter Verwijs to Over de Linden (16-10-1867):

"mag ik [...] een voorstel doen met U te onderhandelen over de overname?"

=>

"may I do a proposal to negotiate with you about selling it?"

Letter Over de Linden to Verwijs (17-10-1867):

"Een familiestuk dat zoo ter bewaring wordt aanbevolen mag men zijne kinderen niet ontvreemden, dus niet verkoopen."

and "ik wil het toch voor geen waarde ruilen"

=>

"One can´t take an inherited family treasure, that is advised to be protected in this way, from ones children, so it can´t be sold."

and "I don´t want to sell it for any price"

Verwijs in his report to the Provincial Executive of Friesland (17-12-1867):

"Hij eiste bepaaldelijk dat het oude Hs. [Oera Linda Boek] eerst in zijn geheel voor hem vertaald. Was dit geschied, kende hij er den inhoud van, dan zoude hij er volstrekt niet tegen zijn dat het Hs. werd uitgegeven, mits het maar niets bevatte dat zijne familie kon compromitteeren!"

=>

"He demanded explicitly that the old manuscript [OLB] would first all be translated for him. When this was done, and he knew the content, he would by no means object publication, as long as it did not contain anything that could compromise his family."

Never (when he had the chance) did Over de Linden make an attemt to make money from selling it or from publication.

This means that your speculation about Over de Linden and Stadermann hoping to make money from it is nonsense.

~

Knul, you collected many sources (which is the only good thing about your website).

Why don´t you study them?

Edited January 1, 2014 by gestur

[Knul]

This means that your speculation about Over de Linden and Stadermann hoping to make money from it is nonsense.

Please translate this letter:

Brief van J.G. Ottema aan Cornelis over de Linden d.d. 24 januari 1874.

WelEd. Heer ! Sedert ik voor 14 dagen op uwen brief antwoordde, heb ik van u geen nader schrijven ontvangen betreffende de aanhangige zaak. En toch ben ik nieuwsgierig te vernemen, welke loop die onderhandeling neemt. Hoe gunstiger ze voor u uitloopt, des te aangenamer zal het mij zijn. Later is mij voor den geest gekomen, dat iemand, die ongevraagd en vrijwillig zulk een bod doet, ook wel meer geven kan en wil. Iemand toch die biedt, waar geen vraag gesteld is, begint gewoonlijk niet met zijn ultimatum. Als dat gedane bod ernst is, zei mij een koopman, dan zoude ik het dubbele vragen, en dan met looven en bieden het verschil deelen. Ik kan mij voorstellen dat die zaak u in eene spanning houdt en hoop maar, dat zij u niet teveel zorgen baart. Moge slechts niet eene ongesteldheid de reden zijn, dat gij mij in de laatste week niet geschreven hebt... Kan het zijn, laat mij dan spoedig iets vernemen, want gij **** denken, dat ik er groot belang in stel. Ontvang dezen in welstand en wees zeer vriendelijk en hartelijk gegroet.

[Knul]

Knul, in the introduction of your website you wrote:

"De echtheid staat niet meer ter discussie, maar de zoektocht naar de schrijver en het doel van het boek gaat onverminderd door."

Translated:

"The authenticity is no longer debated, but the search for the author and the purpose of the book is still going on."

What are we doing here?

Wasn´t Alewyn Raubenheimer´s book, that inspired this thread, an argument in favor of OLB´s authenticity?

If you would write that there are in fact people who believe that OLB is authentic, who even publish books about it, but that you don´t take them seriously, it would at least be honest.

But by simply pretending there is no discussion at all, you are lying.

You know very well (or you can find it on my website) that the discussion on the authenticity of the OLB has been finished in 1876, when the Academy of Sciences refused to investigate its authenticity and that 50 years later the German scientists abandoned the claimed authenticity by Wirth. You reopened that discussion, but your remarks on its authenticity are no more than speculations, no single proof. Alewyn did not investigate the authenticity, but used the supposed authenticity as proof of his theory on the big flood. That's the question mentioned in the title of the thread: Did it happen in circa 2190 BCE?

Edited January 1, 2014 by Knul

[Ott]

Please translate this letter:

He got an offer after the OLB had become internationally known (which is no surprise), but it did not come to a deal.

When he could ask Verwijs for money in the beginning, he didn´t.

That means it wasn´t his goal to make money with it.

As he didn´t know the content before it was translated, he hoped there might be information in it about a family treasure.

Since the whole drama with the false accusations (that you continue) started, his main concern will have been to save the family honor.

[Ott]

You know very well (or you can find it on my website) that the discussion on the authenticity of the OLB has been finished in 1876...

Even Jensma (through Frisian television) admits there are still discussions about the authenticity.

See this educational television broadcast about the OLB at 11:54 min.:

"en tegenwoordig zijn er altijd nog discussies over de echtheid ervan"

[Knul]

.

As he didn´t know the content before it was translated, he hoped there might be information in it about a family treasure.

What else could family treasure mean than gold, money ? Why was there a quarrel about the inheritance of his father with aunt Aafje over de Linden and her husband ? Why did Stadermann advise him to claim the two books, which could earn him a fortune ? COdL could not even read the books.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Knul

[Knul]

Even Jensma (through Frisian television) admits there are still discussions about the authenticity.

Jensma referred to new age circles, but there the authenticity is not questioned at all.

[NO-ID-EA]

Sorry to sit on the fence , but i can see Knul's point that the Official establishment investigation finished in the 19th C, although he could make it clearer that

many people still have doubts about the official findings , that is not the way Knul leans , he is of the opinion it is a fake.

however my leanings are more to the side of not being convinced .....ODL did not want to sell the book before he had a translation....this means to me that

although he had the translation code within the book , he could probably translate some , but not all of the book ......and was worried because of repeated warnings not to show it to priests and princes that there could be something incriminating against his family............this makes me convinced he was not

involved in any forgery.. or he would know what it said.. would know there was nothing incriminating about his family , and would know whether or not

there was any hidden treasure to be found.....he does not seem to have had any knowledge of these things and that was why he would not sell it

Stadermann seems to have been more interested in the alternative history the book ...the second book , i think was a family bible , passed down through

many generations....these old family bibles were traditionally used to record births , deaths , and marriages within a family , so also at this stage ODL

would need the second book to prove any descent from someone who was at one time Over the Linda (jeuda or people)

This also makes me think .. ( unless the family bible was also faked) that if ODL and Stadermann knew the whole of the oera linda book was a fake

ie: written by them .....it even seems Stadermann had to tell ODL , he needed to get it... if ODL had faked the oera linda

around the geneology of the family bible ..he must have already had it. so why would Stadermann tell him to get it ?? he would have known he needed it as confirmation , but he did not seem to have been so worried about obtaining it ??

[Knul]

Sorry to sit on the fence , but i can see Knul's point that the Official establishment investigation finished in the 19th C, although he could make it clearer that

many people still have doubts about the official findings , that is not the way Knul leans , he is of the opinion it is a fake.

however my leanings are more to the side of not being convinced .....ODL did not want to sell the book before he had a translation....this means to me that

although he had the translation code within the book , he could probably translate some , but not all of the book ......and was worried because of repeated warnings not to show it to priests and princes that there could be something incriminating against his family............this makes me convinced he was not

involved in any forgery.. or he would know what it said.. would know there was nothing incriminating about his family , and would know whether or not

there was any hidden treasure to be found.....he does not seem to have had any knowledge of these things and that was why he would not sell it

Stadermann seems to have been more interested in the alternative history the book ...the second book , i think was a family bible , passed down through

many generations....these old family bibles were traditionally used to record births , deaths , and marriages within a family , so also at this stage ODL

would need the second book to prove any descent from someone who was at one time Over the Linda (jeuda or people)

This also makes me think .. ( unless the family bible was also faked) that if ODL and Stadermann knew the whole of the oera linda book was a fake

ie: written by them .....it even seems Stadermann had to tell ODL , he needed to get it... if ODL had faked the oera linda

around the geneology of the family bible ..he must have already had it. so why would Stadermann tell him to get it ?? he would have known he needed it as confirmation , but he did not seem to have been so worried about obtaining it ??

Let us restructure the case:

In 1845 COdL asked Stadermann to join him to Enkhuizen. He had found out, that his father did not get his inheritance from the bookshop at Enkuizen. Stadermann, who knew about old books as he was a book restaurator and binder indicated two books, which could earn money., but there was no deal, because the husband of aunt Aafje over de Linden opposed to it.

In 1848 COdL returned - now with his eldest son - to Enkhuizen and aunt Aafje, who remarried in the meantime, had the two books ready and gave them to COdL without discussion. This time she didn't tell her new husband.

What are the two books: one is the family story, now known as OLB, the other book was the Frisian history, by Worp of Thabor (16th c.). The two books seem to go together, as the Worp of Thabor contained (in Latin) a chapter on the origin of the Frisians from the Pangab. The book is not related to the Over de Linden family at all.

Stadermann may have thought that the Worp would earn money, but he was not aware, that there were allready various copies of the book around. Ottema, who edited all five books of the Worp told COdL that his copy had no value at all. By the way COdL declared to Verwijs that the family history had no value, but the Worp (thick as the Statenbijbel) had. Later he changed his mind after Verwijs told him that his family history was important, but Verwijs said so, because he wanted to get the Worp in hand. He just thought, that it was more complete than Ottema's pulished version of the Worp. COdL had promised him the Worp, when he would make a translation for free of the family history. Verwijs thought that the family history was a joke.

All of this you can read in the corresponance of COdL with Verwijs and Ottema on my website s. http://www.rodinbook...alindaboek.html .

Edited January 2, 2014 by Knul

[NO-ID-EA]

I would if i could read your language Knul , and i will go back and check but i am sure the copy of Oera Linda i read , said the second book was a family bible .

is the worp book translated into English anywhere on the net do you know Knul? i would be interested in reading it if so .

Edited January 2, 2014 by NO-ID-EA

[Knul]

I would if i could read your language Knul , and i will go back and check but i am sure the copy of Oera Linda i read , said the second book was a family bible .

is the worp book translated into English anywhere on the net do you know Knul? i would be interested in reading it if so .

I can give you only a link to Wikipedia (Dutch): http://nl.wikipedia....Worp_van_Thabor . No English translation.

http://books.google.nl/books/about/Chronicorum_Frisiae_libri_tres.html?id=fXMVtwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

In Augustus 1948 was het honderd jaar geleden, dat de toen 37-jarige Cornelis over de Linden, scheepstimmerman eerste klasse aan 's Rijks Marinewerf te Den Helder, met zijn oudste zoon, de 13-jarige kwekeling Cornelis een reisje maakte naar Enkhuizen om aldaar een bezoek te brengen aan zijn moeder (weduwe van Jan over de Linden) en aan zijn gehuwde tante Aafje (dochter van de in 1820 overleden Andries over de Linden). Een gewoon familie-bezoek dus, waaraan de herinnering reeds lang verloren zou zijn gegaan, ware het niet dat deze beide reizigers bij hun terugkeer uit Enkhuizen naar Den Helder in het bezit waren van een pakket geschriften van zeer buitengewone inhoud. In dit pakket werden door Cornelis over de Linden en zijn zoon aanwezig bevonden een groot en een klein handschrift. Het eerste (waarvan het begin Latijn en het verdere -grootste - gedeelte Oud-Hollands) werd later herkend als een zeldzaam voorkomend afschrift van 'De Kroniek van Friesland' van Worp van Thabor, terwijl het kleinere handschrift, geschreven in de oud-Friese taal met een onbekend letterschrift, later door de vertaling van Dr. J.G. Ottema bekend zou worden als 'Het Oera Linda Boek'.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Knul