Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

[Abramelin]

Also worth considering is:

1) this line from the OLB (Sandbach p.17):

"Powerful Frya! At the glance of her eye the lion lay down at her feet"

2) the fact that Frya is associated with cats:

3) the Germanic tribe-name Chatti (= cats? = lions?)

The etymology of the name "Chatti" is very questionable

.

It could even have been a Celtic word, meaning something like "hated"....

http://www.dbnl.org/...501_01_0010.php

.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Van Gorp found this image of the Baudecet plate:

The text is from the middle of the second century CE. No one really knows what language it is, although some have assumed it was Celtic. It was found in Namur (Namen), Belgium. Others say no one really has an idea what language it is, and from a book I gathered it might be from the (almost mythical) "Nordwest Block" which used a language that was somewhere inbetween Celtic and Germanic, and might even have antedated these two languages.

If you want physical proof of the OLB, than you should look for these kind of things, and not play around with words to pass time.

.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Now check the 5th line, 4th letter (from the left), and see if you can see a resemblance with a letter from the OLB lettersheet (as published by Ottema) :

It is not exactly the same as the OLB letter for -GS- , but I think it's close enough.

Some think the script is Latin, and maybe I am wrong, but I have never seen a D-like letter in the Latin alphabet with a slanted line through part of the letter D.

==

EDIT:

I also see the 3d -A- in the OLB lettersheet (from the left) showing up on the plate.

And I also see a mirrored letter -D-.

But both (including that other -D- with the slanted line) are not Latin letters.

.

.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Abramelin

[NO-ID-EA]

Now check the 5th line, 4th letter (from the left), and see if you can see a resemblance with a letter from the OLB lettersheet (as published by Ottema) :

It is not exactly the same as the OLB letter for -GS- , but I think it's close enough.

Some think the script is Latin, and maybe I am wrong, but I have never seen a D-like letter in the Latin alphabet with a slanted line through part of the letter D.

.

.

The way i was looking at the letters , was assuming the dot above indicated one letter. ie 4th line , letters 8 and 10 are Ms , indicated

by one dot above , even though they look like 2 of the first letter in ottema's letters.

to be like the OBL GS the D should be back to front with the line through it ..... although the last letter on the 1st line does look like a backwards D

You noticed the DIR that they seemed to quote wrongly , but did not mention the RUTI which they said was RUFI.

in the first line , what are the starting letters is it ISDET going by the dots , or JDET ??

6th line , 8th letter can you see an M under that V ??

[Van Gorp]

Now check the 5th line, 4th letter (from the left), and see if you can see a resemblance with a letter from the OLB lettersheet (as published by Ottema) :

It is not exactly the same as the OLB letter for -GS- , but I think it's close enough.

Some think the script is Latin, and maybe I am wrong, but I have never seen a D-like letter in the Latin alphabet with a slanted line through part of the letter D.

==

EDIT:

I also see the 3d -A- in the OLB lettersheet (from the left) showing up on the plate.

And I also see a mirrored letter -D-.

But both (including that other -D- with the slanted line) are not Latin letters.

.

.

Hi Abe,

The ressemblance of certain characters (let it be mirrored or not) with OLB is indeed there.

Strange that there haven't been found more of these plates with similar characters (I at least don't know of them).

Do you think the special character (D slented line) in both texts could be related?

But I thought you were more inclined to believe OLB as being fabricated in recent times, would there than be more texts with this character that inspired OLB writers.

Or OLB indeed genuine from old age like the plate?

Sometimes I wonder if OLB tekst was put into ground and found later on like the plate, what would people had thought then?

[Van Gorp]

No, you are stretching it...

The OLB says FO means FALSE.

It is nothing but the OLB translation of the name "FO".

FO, from French FAUX, does indeed mean "FALSE".

And lo and behold, Over de Linden had many French books in his possession.

And... Volney's "The Ruins" (in Dutch and in the original French).

Maybe or maybe you are stretching it also a bit my friend :-)

First of all there is much said of the 'childish' etymology (for some) troughout the whole OLB, giving a Dutch meaning also to assumed non-dutch words.

Now, concerning Buddha being called FOT in his native land (and by Volney's account), and OLB giving Jesus aka Buddha the meaning of 'false' you as a Dutch speaking person should know we don't need the French word 'faux' to link Buddha's given name or Volney's FOT with 'false' (what is the same as not right).

FOT is FOUT (Dutch for Faux) and if OLB writers would be looking to convincingly fabricate this meaning and link it with Buddha, why than not just take over Buddha's (Volney's) FOT intirely instead of FO and say FOT is False? That would be perfectly in line with the other 'crazy' etymologies. A miss before open goal this would be called in soccer terms.

Imo the reason why OLB mentions FO is because the T at the end just falls away and comes again frequently in the interchange of spoken/written language, the French made in the same way their creoler version of it as usual without remembering where it came from :-)

Edited January 16, 2014 by Van Gorp

[Van Gorp]

But if I try to follow your logic Abe,

Are you really convinced Cornelis wrote OLB (while being inspired by Volney around Buddha/Jesus story mixed with his own creativity found in French language)?

[Ott]

CAUTION

OLB-believers are dangerous!

"Its mythologic-religious character makes the book loved by some loners, whose belief in secret conspiracies entices them to commit (suicide) attacks." (my translation)

Original dutch text:

"Het mythologisch-religieuze karakter maakt het boek eveneens geliefd bij sommige einzelgängers, wier geloof in geheime samenzweringen hen tot (zelfmoord)aanslagen verleidt."

Source: "Bedrog, bijgeloof en zelfmoord in Friesland" (Deceit, superstition and suicide in Friesland) in Eos Magazine (sept. 2011), by penny-a-liner Chris Reinewald.

I asked the scribbler for a source and if he knew an example of such an attack. He answered that he had promised his anonymous source to not reveil any details in order to protect him/her.

I found a fascinating possible piece of the puzzle.

Jensma suggested (don't recall where exactly now) that the OLB had made 'victims' (people who believed in its authenticity).

Other authors have suggested that it would be a product of dark forces.

In 1983 Jensma acted (main character) in a short film, titled "Stof tot Stilte" (he used the name Goffe Theunis).

This film can very well be seen as an allegory about the OLB.

The plot in short:

A young photographer falls in love with a mysterious, unattainable woman who was in the background of some photos he took.

He does not know that the woman was sent there on purpose by an man (fate, doom?), to make him the victim of his evil plot.

He gets obsessed with her and enters a limbo of doubt: Does she still live, is she real at all?

At the end he meets her, but she somehow dissappoints him, anyway he looses his mind and commits suicide.

The film ends with the mysterious evil man looking for a new victim.

See and decide for yourself:

If someone from the group of friends who made this film got obsessed with the OLB, lost his mind and/ or commited suicide, this would explain the fear around the OLB that I sense in Jensma's book (and in Friesland in general). Psychologically it is a well known mechanism to ridicule or demonise something that is feared. (Just speculating out loud.)

[Knul]

But if I try to follow your logic Abe,

Are you really convinced Cornelis wrote OLB (while being inspired by Volney around Buddha/Jesus story mixed with his own creativity found in French language)?

Cornelis over de Linden did not know French, though he possessed both the French orginal text and the Dutch translation. s. http://www.rodinbook.nl/olbveilingoverdelinden2.html 37 and 92. So the translation could not come from Cornelis over de Linden, but from Dr. J.H. Halbertsma, who was the first to write on the Tibetan Sakya tradition of Buddhism, Het Buddhisme en zijn stichter (1843)

[Ott]

... Dr. J.H. Halbertsma

IF Halbertsma would have written the OLB,

1) it would have been more than a masterpiece and he would have known that. He would have wanted the honour. His family would have known that he had worked on it.

2) he would have included Hindelopen, which he was convinced to be the most pristine Frisian city.

3) why would the family Over de Linden (Ovira Linda, Oera Linda) have been included?

4) how would it have gotten into the hands over Over de Linden and/ or Stadermann?

[NO-ID-EA]

I have translated part of the Brut into Fryan and it leads to many insights.

Will post about it later...

You TEASE

[Ott]

You TEASE

OK, here is a beginning.

Just experimenting...

[Knul]

IF Halbertsma would have written the OLB,

1) it would have been more than a masterpiece and he would have known that. He would have wanted the honour. His family would have known that he had worked on it.

2) he would have included Hindelopen, which he was convinced to be the most pristine Frisian city.

3) why would the family Over de Linden (Ovira Linda, Oera Linda) have been included?

4) how would it have gotten into the hands over Over de Linden and/ or Stadermann?

Who else could have written it ?

[Ott]

Who else could have written it ?

That Halberstma did not write it, does not mean someone else must have written it.

Start considering the possibility that it is authentic and all will begin to make much more sense.

[NO-ID-EA]

Ah...An excellent way to show the similarity of the languages used in each.....now convert it to Dutch ,or German and i think you will see much more

difference........i have noticed wherever you see a hat on a vowel in lawamon ( eg line 4 last word drihte , you add an "n" or an "m"

.. it works throughout the 3 Lawaman books... this makes drihte = drihten....even closer to drochten.

Edited January 19, 2014 by NO-ID-EA

[Van Gorp]

Cornelis over de Linden did not know French, though he possessed both the French orginal text and the Dutch translation. s. http://www.rodinbook...rdelinden2.html 37 and 92. So the translation could not come from Cornelis over de Linden, but from Dr. J.H. Halbertsma, who was the first to write on the Tibetan Sakya tradition of Buddhism, Het Buddhisme en zijn stichter (1843)

Okay, thnx for this input of yours.

Despite some attemps in general, I'll try to ask you now more personnaly, maybe you overlooked the question or choose not to handle it.

It is clear you did some great effort in your research and website, mostly on giving access to the texts and circonstancial information about main figures when to manuscript came to public.

But now again: please put that aside one moment and give us your opinion about some contents.

If you say the OLB text is possible a fabrication of an erudite person, what about the correctness of the OLB contents, let's take the etymology part for fun?

As Lets were in OLB Latene as in Ver-Latene, far of, verlaten, remote and Slaves were called because in fact they were slave/unfree workers (in contrary to slaves/unfree come from Slaves or some derivation of Roman/Greek root).

Because in germanic root we have many different words in realm of working hard (sloven), going tiresome or move slowly (sloffen), and drag/tow/trail (slepen as in sleeve) outside the mines.

Could it be that this manuscript helps to tackle many dead trails in etymology when following the Roman/Greek track as origin of many words used in Germannic languages?

Meaning Roman/Greek influence in our language is less than mostly is assumed in accepted or 'official' etymology explanations (in fact they hardly explain anything than going back to an uncertain Greek root).

Hence, it could be the otherway round: Greek roots are likely more influenced by a Germanic root.

Hence Greek/Roman culture and history are likely more influenced by Germanic heritage than otherwise.

[Abramelin]

Hi Abe,

The ressemblance of certain characters (let it be mirrored or not) with OLB is indeed there.

Strange that there haven't been found more of these plates with similar characters (I at least don't know of them).

Do you think the special character (D slented line) in both texts could be related?

But I thought you were more inclined to believe OLB as being fabricated in recent times, would there than be more texts with this character that inspired OLB writers.

Or OLB indeed genuine from old age like the plate?

Sometimes I wonder if OLB tekst was put into ground and found later on like the plate, what would people had thought then?

I do hope you remember, Van Gorp, that I have repeatedly said, in the "Doggerland" thread, and in this thread, that the OLB was what it purported to be: a true account of some ancient, and unknown, European civilization.

But hoping something is true doesn't automatically mean someone just accepts the most flimsy "proof".

I am too skeptical for that. I want real, physical proof, and not just a play with words.

And that is why I - and no one else - came up with archeological finds, like the Minoan amber seals found near/in the German Bight (1100 BCE), Linear A inscriptions on some rock in Sweden (1700 BCE), like the Phoenician vase found during the construction of the "Afsluitdijk" (around 2000 BCE) , and now with that golden plate (around 150 CE).

Why do you think I post those finds?

Because I am "afraid" I might be wrong, after all??

[Abramelin]

But if I try to follow your logic Abe,

Are you really convinced Cornelis wrote OLB (while being inspired by Volney around Buddha/Jesus story mixed with his own creativity found in French language)?

He certainly did have the knowledge and drive to create something like the OLB.

[Abramelin]

Cornelis over de Linden did not know French, though he possessed both the French orginal text and the Dutch translation. s. http://www.rodinbook...rdelinden2.html 37 and 92. So the translation could not come from Cornelis over de Linden, but from Dr. J.H. Halbertsma, who was the first to write on the Tibetan Sakya tradition of Buddhism, Het Buddhisme en zijn stichter (1843)

Then tell me why he owned books written in the French language.

[Van Gorp]

I do hope you remember, Van Gorp, that I have repeatedly said, in the "Doggerland" thread, and in this thread, that the OLB was what it purported to be: a true account of some ancient, and unknown, European civilization.

But hoping something is true doesn't automatically mean someone just accepts the most flimsy "proof".

I am too skeptical for that. I want real, physical proof, and not just a play with words.

And that is why I - and no one else - came up with archeological finds, like the Minoan amber seals found near/in the German Bight (1100 BCE), Linear A inscriptions on some rock in Sweden (1700 BCE), like the Phoenician vase found during the construction of the "Afsluitdijk" (around 2000 BCE) , and now with that golden plate (around 150 CE).

Why do you think I post those finds?

Because I am "afraid" I might be wrong, after all??

Ok, thnx for clearing this up again.

So you believe the manuscript is fabricated but the contents as being the true history of a unknown/forgotten European civilisation (that called their sunken land Atland and their people Fryans) is genuine.

As all accepted history is silent about this civilisation as such, except some mythical tales about Atlantis, I wonder why you sometimes say OLB is NOT to be connected with Atlantis.

All credits to you about bringing up historical finds, I think you do have interesting posts.

But I must admit that sometimes it is difficult for me to get a grip on where you finally want to go with it.

But that I find no problem, because I don't know myself what to think of OLB at some times.

[Ott]

He certainly did have the knowledge and drive to create something like the OLB.

No way.

[Ott]

I am too skeptical for that.

Skeptics dare to question common beliefs.

Believers don´t question what is dictated by authorities such as school and mass media.

You are much more a believer than a skeptic.

[NO-ID-EA]

Guys and Gals.

while i was on another Forum on a thread about Oera Linda ...one poster "Nyneve" posted "the year 2194/3 BC corresponds to a general collapse of civilisations in both Egypt and Mesop , but this in no way corresponds to Plato's sinking of Atlantis"

a new member appeared , and only made one post on the OE thread , and only one other post on the forum on the same night (about the gematric no 666 in a different thread.).....and then never posted again , that was in 2012.... but i keep going back and reading his post again... ? for some reason i have it in my head that what he said was important..... but it was linked to Astronomy , and the subject leaves me for dead.i don't understand it.

....I am going to post what he said, and the book i have found that he got it from.....maybe someone else on here will be able to understand it and say if it is important ??

29th March 2012..Graham Kent........"That's fine but do not sell the date short - I have discovered the error of the date 2194 BC ,the year zero came in 538 AD, when the Indian/Hindu astronomers re-measured the beginning of the Kali Yuga Epoch , and began re-visiting their ancient history , updating it with their new more modern astronomic calculation.

The same year ,538 is the year Justinian decreed that the papacy was to become a political power , and became the head of the 10 tribal Roman Kingships/ the beast of revelations. my revelation is that although we see the history of the Roman Catholic church being 1260 years from 538 AD to 1798 AD - how is it we do not see the 1656 years from 538 AD back to 2194 BC....This figure 1656 years is also said by the church to be the no. of years from creation to the flood.

According to Kali yuga 538 was the end of a creation/epoch , so 1656 was the fabrication of a secret link to understand the deluge.. Christians are told by Usher that the flood took place 4004BC- 1656 yrs = 2347 BC. 538 was year zero at the time the church decided to get involved with the reverse calculation . and is why Freemasons admit to using the Hindu calculations in their masterpiece the applecart theatre.

The Roman Catholic church hid time, when they say they founded Rome in 753 BC, the same time within a year or so , to the time of the wars of the Gods and the Giants , when they paused the war for an eclipse of the sun , and moon , that we still pretend is in the time of Joshua.

The book he mentioned was . http://www.archive.org/stream/ahistoricalview00bentgoog#page/n6/mode/2up

anyone got any ideas if this is relative ??

[NO-ID-EA]

He seems to be saying to me that at year 538 AD , the Pope and Justinian , in accordance with Hindu re-calculations re-numbered the years....so 753BC , the year they say Rome was founded, was really only 753 years before 538 AD (which they are secretly now going to use as year zero......so Rome was really only founded in year 215 BC..................It seems to me this could have some bearing on why there seems to be gaps ( per velikovsky in greek history /maybe Egyptian dating).could be a reason that people lost all interest in the dating of historic writing (because it was in such a mess , dating wise no one but the church knew what was written/happened when ??) and why we had to have a renaissance , to re-visit the problem.....and Joseph Justus Scaliger to make a 1600's attempt to make sense of the whole situation ???..........but i have probably understood it all wrong........Help!

Edited January 20, 2014 by NO-ID-EA

[The Puzzler]

If you say the OLB text is possible a fabrication of an erudite person, what about the correctness of the OLB contents, let's take the etymology part for fun?

As Lets were in OLB Latene as in Ver-Latene, far of, verlaten, remote and Slaves were called because in fact they were slave/unfree workers (in contrary to slaves/unfree come from Slaves or some derivation of Roman/Greek root).

Because in germanic root we have many different words in realm of working hard (sloven), going tiresome or move slowly (sloffen), and drag/tow/trail (slepen as in sleeve) outside the mines.

Could it be that this manuscript helps to tackle many dead trails in etymology when following the Roman/Greek track as origin of many words used in Germannic languages?

Meaning Roman/Greek influence in our language is less than mostly is assumed in accepted or 'official' etymology explanations (in fact they hardly explain anything than going back to an uncertain Greek root).

Hence, it could be the otherway round: Greek roots are likely more influenced by a Germanic root.

Hence Greek/Roman culture and history are likely more influenced by Germanic heritage than otherwise.

Well said - and this is where I sit on it, believing this to be the case. It's a strong reason why I am still here.