Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood [Part 2]

[The Puzzler]

An-t north-ende fon Britanja tha^et fvl mith hâga bergum is, thêr sit en Skots folk,

What if the OLB actually is meaning some Irish folk who were in Scotland area?

We don't know why the Romans called them this but could assume this is what they called themself, so Romans called them their name, the Scoti.

[The Gremlin]

I always thought that Scot meant sea-raider

[Abramelin]

Yes, that is what the Wiki I linked to, or this one http://en.wikipedia....ogy_of_Scotland , both suggest.

But whatever the name means, the problem for the OLB is that that name came into being during and/or after Roman times.

.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Gremlin]

why not before?

and could it not refer to folk other than those that eventually settled in Dalriata?

[Abramelin]

why not before?

and could it not refer to folk other than those that eventually settled in Dalriata?

The OLB mentions Scots, but it was about those who settled in what is now called Scotland - Ireland is never mentioned in the OLB - , and (I will look up a quote from the OLB) it took place centuries earlier. The people the OLB calls Scots were refugees from the tin mines in the south (Cornwall) and Gauls,

[Abramelin]

According to the OLB, the name dates at least from Phoenician times:

Now we shall see what resulted from all this bustle. In the north part of Britain (with all its high mountains) there exists a Scottish people—the most of them spring from Frya’s blood—some of them are descended from the followers of Keltana, and, for the rest, from Britons and fugitives who gradually, in the course of time, took refuge there from the tin mines.

====

When Askar thought a favourable opportunity occurred, he went with forty ships and took Kerenac and the chief of the Gauls, with all his gold. The people with whom he fought against the soldiers of the Gauls, he had enticed out of the Saxenmarken by promises of much booty and plunder. Thus nothing was left to the Gauls. After that he took two islands for stations for his ships, from which he used later to sally forth and plunder all the Phœnician ships and towns that he could reach. When he returned he brought nearly six hundred of the finest youths of the Scotch mountaineers with him.

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/

.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Abramelin

[Van Gorp]

Yes, all interesting points of view that are posted.

In addition the difficult account of de Ravennas, that gives headache to historians and geographers :-)

Keeping in mind the possibility of a North-our-West orientation it can be read as follows:

Finitur autem ipsa britania.

A facie orientis habet insulam thile ultra insulas dorcadas; a facie occidentis ex parte prouincie galliam et promunturium pyrenei; a facie septentrionali insulam scotiam; a facie meridiana germaniam antiquam.

Ravenna on Britania :

On the east (our North) side: islands ‘Thile’ and Dorcadis

On the west (our South) side: Provincia Gallia and the Pyrenee promotorium

On the north (our West) side: Island Scotia

On the south (our East) side: Old Germania

When you try to reconcile one and another (just a try), you could have a story that goes like this.

Scotia could have been in ancient times/origin (and all true naratives stemming from that period) the Island what we call now ‘Ireland’.

Fugitives,exploited workers from tin mines, expelled criminals for the establishment all find their way to and fro by boat (see Gremlin’s + Abes post) on this Island.

I keep thinking of some expressions where ‘schot’ is used, same as OLB uses it elsewhere in the sentence

“Dubbelhirta Finda. Vmbe skotse wirda wa^erth hju yre, a^end tha a^ergste dêda ne rorde hja navt.”

“Treacherous Finda! One wrong word would irritate her, and the cruellest deeds did not affect her.”

No offence to the scottish people, just referring to some expressions in Dutch:

Uitschot: crapuul, schuinsmarcheerder -> wrong doers, criminals

Schots en scheef: schuin -> not in order, not right

Schunnige praat: scheef praten

Like the priests: playing the saint and being cultivated only in words, they blamed the common people for swearing or using a slightly rougher language.

Though most hidious acts and develish plots were done by clergy, not the people they dominated.

So 'skots' using as a really adjective for some people, that has become by time a general noun for a geographical place or people.

By the passing of time these ‘skotse’ people moved further and were also still referred to as such (like Puz mentionned) becoming eventually 'The Scots' in what is now called Scotland.

Just a thought.

[Otharus]

The foreword to Jensma's OLB translation (2006) starts with:

"Tot nu toe is iedere editie van het Oera Linda-boek bezorgd door mensen die geloofden dat de tekst was wat ze zei, namelijk een handschrift dat [...] in 1256 en daarvoor in 803 na Christus nog tweemaal was gekopieerd, ..."

English translation:

"Thus far, every edition of the OLB was delivered by people who believed that the text was what it claimed to be; a manuscript that [...] was copied in 1256 and before that twice in 803 AD, ..."

In some earlier posts I made the mistake of assuming that Liko "Ovira-Linda", who added a letter dated 803 CE, had made a copy of the OLB. (I referred to the letters from Liko and Hidde as 'copyist letters'.)

The OLB does not claim that it was copied in 803, only that it was copied in 1256 CE. How many times it was copied before that is not mentioned nor suggested.

Why Jensma writes that (people believe) it was copied twice in 803 CE is a mystery to me.

[Otharus]

A revealing quote about the OLB

1927 ~ M. de Jong, "Het geheim van het Oera-Linda-Boek"

"Er zijn er, die door de brede kruinen van het Lindenwoud de eeuwenoude Friese vrijheidszang horen ruisen; er zijn er, die zich onder het dichte loverdak wanen aan de bron ener zuivere godsopenbaring; er zijn er ook, die in het Oera-Linda-Boek het bedrieglijk kunstwerk van machten der duisternis zien, vervaardigd met het blijkbare doel de grondslagen van Kerk en Maatschappij te ondermijnen."

Translation:

"There are those, who hear the ancient Frisian song of freedom rustle through the wide tops of the Lindenforest; there are those, who have the illusion of [...] having found the source of a pure divine revelation; and there are those, who see the OLB as the deceptive masterpiece of dark forces, made with the apparent goal of undermining the foundations of Church and Society."

[Otharus]

Several OLB 'hoax-theorists' (including Jensma) have suggested that 'believers' are suspicious, because some Nazis (including Himmler) liked the OLB.

In this context, the following quote is relevant:

From "Herman Wirth und die Ura-Linda-chronik" by (German psychiatrist) Arthur Hübner (1934):

"Die Ura Linda- Chronik ist nicht nur demokratisch, führerfeindlich, pazifistisch in ihrer Grundeinstellung, sie ist im ganzen ein Machwerk ohne Saft und Kraft..."

Translated:

"Not only is the OLB democratic, führer- [Hitler-] inimical, and pacifistic in its foundations, as a whole it is a worthless fabrication ["without juice and power"]."

[Abramelin]

Several OLB 'hoax-theorists' (including Jensma) have suggested that 'believers' are suspicious, because some Nazis (including Himmler) liked the OLB.

In this context, the following quote is relevant:

From "Herman Wirth und die Ura-Linda-chronik" by (German psychiatrist) Arthur Hübner (1934):

"Die Ura Linda- Chronik ist nicht nur demokratisch, führerfeindlich, pazifistisch in ihrer Grundeinstellung, sie ist im ganzen ein Machwerk ohne Saft und Kraft..."

Translated:

"Not only is the OLB democratic, führer- [Hitler-] inimical, and pacifistic in its foundations, as a whole it is a worthless fabrication ["without juice and power"]."

This is the 21st century.

I agree, some may have second thoughts about the OLB for the reasons you posted, Otharus.

But most others simply think it is a hoax/forgery/mystification/falsification or whatever one may want to call it.

Jensma's opinion is not a condicio sine qua non... it's just his opinion.

My Latin is a bit rusty, so maybe I used the wrong Latin expression. lol.

[Otharus]

This is the 21st century.

Much of our 'modern' culture is still based on very old nonsense.

Example: genital mutilation of children by jews and muslims.

But most others simply think it is a hoax/forgery/mystification/falsification or whatever one may want to call it.

Most of these 'simple thoughts' are based on old, biased (politically and/or religiously colored?) conclusions.

For example the two most common arguments against authenticity:

1) The claim that the paper is too new was never seriously documented. It is misinformation.

2) The argument that the language is too modern, or that certain (suggested) etymologies are too ridiculous. This thread has demonstrated that these arguments are weak. OLB fitted less well in the 19th and 20th century paradigms, than it fits with the information that we have today.

If OLB was fake, this should have become more obvious through the years, not less, as is the case.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Otharus

[Otharus]

A quote worth noting

From Goffe Jensma (1992) in "Lees, leer en waak ~ Het Oera Linda Bok. Een rondleiding":

"The OLB is a remarkable construction. It presents itself rather as a pit - excavated in layers - that one can enter, than as an orderly erected building. I want to descend into this pit - a dangerous enterprise, I know - with the reader."

Original text:

"Het OLB is een merkwaardige constructie. Het laat zich veeleer zien als een in lagen uitgegraven put waar men in kan lopen, dan als een overzichtelijk opgetrokken bouwwerk. In deze put wil ik - een gevaarlijke onderneming, ik weet het - met the lezer afdalen."

So... what would be 'dangerous' about reading ('descending into') the OLB?

[Abramelin]

I prefer to discuss archeology, geology, history, things like that.

Juggling words won't prove a thing, opinions from socalled 'respected' people won't either.

I showed you all Minoans were present here, in Frisia, 1400/1700 BC,

Now I want to see some proof the Fryans or ancient Frisians being present in ancient Crete or Greece, or Egypt, or the Punjab.

Some other Fryan MS.

ANYTHING.

Talking about why someone or the Dutch government thinks things like this should be criticized or 'hidden' or debunked, or whatever, won't get us anywhere new.

.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Much of our 'modern' culture is still based on very old nonsense.

Example: genital mutilation of children by jews and muslims.

Most of these 'simple thoughts' are based on old, biased (politically and/or religiously colored?) conclusions.

For example the two most common arguments against authenticity:

1) The claim that the paper is too new was never seriously documented. It is misinformation.

2) The argument that the language is too modern, or that certain (suggested) etymologies are too ridiculous. This thread has demonstrated that these arguments are weak. OLB fitted less well in the 19th and 20th century paradigms, than it fits with the information that we have today.

If OLB was fake, this should have become more obvious through the years, not less, as is the case.

This thread has 'demonstrated' that someone can translate many if not most lines of the OLB with nothing but their command of medieval Dutch.

This is not just about etymology, but also about syntax.

You think a present-day Hindu can read ancient Sanskrit? Or that a modern Greek is able to read the original text of a Homer or a Herodotus?

NO, s/he will have to study that ancient language fiirst.

Words can stick for ages, syntax does not,

[Otharus]

Words can stick for ages, syntax does not.

That is your belief, not a fact.

[Otharus]

Talking about why someone or the Dutch government thinks things like this should be criticized or 'hidden' or debunked, or whatever, won't get us anywhere new.

To understand the cultural climate in which the OLB was received is helpful in understanding why it was forcefully rejected on false grounds.

[The Puzzler]

So 'skots' using as a really adjective for some people, that has become by time a general noun for a geographical place or people.

By the passing of time these ‘skotse’ people moved further and were also still referred to as such (like Puz mentionned) becoming eventually 'The Scots' in what is now called Scotland.

Just a thought.

Thanks for the mention van gorp, I do think it could certainly be like this.

[The Puzzler]

I prefer to discuss archeology, geology, history, things like that.

Juggling words won't prove a thing, opinions from socalled 'respected' people won't either.

I showed you all Minoans were present here, in Frisia, 1400/1700 BC,

Now I want to see some proof the Fryans or ancient Frisians being present in ancient Crete or Greece, or Egypt, or the Punjab.

Some other Fryan MS.

ANYTHING.

Talking about why someone or the Dutch government thinks things like this should be criticized or 'hidden' or debunked, or whatever, won't get us anywhere new.

.

I don't really know what we should be finding.

It was only Minos who stayed in Crete giving his laws - we know someone called Minos did give laws the the Cretans and Greeks, Plato took these very seriously.

What kind of thing do you expect should be found, when these people became part of the early societies of so-said cultures?

[Abramelin]

I don't really know what we should be finding.

It was only Minos who stayed in Crete giving his laws - we know someone called Minos did give laws the the Cretans and Greeks, Plato took these very seriously.

What kind of thing do you expect should be found, when these people became part of the early societies of so-said cultures?

What about an amber seal with OLB script written on it, or the remnants of a Fryan ship, either or both found in the Med? That would be something.

I hope you remember that Linear A inscription on a rock in Scandinavia. It is said to be from around 1700 BC, although people are still not sure if it's indeed Linear A, but it sure looks that way.

"Around 1700 BC" is of course not an exact date, so it could also be 1600 BC, and that's about the time Min_erva arrived in Crete. Suppose the Cretans paid a return visit and with their new and improved script (Fryan), does that mean they changed the Fryan (OLB) script within a decade, or as soon as they learned about it?

[Otharus]

This is not just about etymology, but also about syntax.

OLB-syntax is hardly more similar to Dutch than it is to German...

Dutch and German syntax are very similar.

Something to think about.

[Abramelin]

OLB-syntax is hardly more similar to Dutch than it is to German...

Dutch and German syntax are very similar.

Something to think about.

Yeah, Germans won't have much problems translating the OLB either.

[Otharus]

You did not get my point.

At schools in the Netherlands, Flanders and the German speaking countries, children learn to speak "Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands" (common civilised Dutch) and "High German" respectively. Specially since we have radio, cinema and television, people have started to more speak one and the same variety of their language.

Yet, rural areas, individual cities and cultural groups (like the Ashkenazi Jews) had - and sometimes still have - their own specific dialect. I come from an area where even neighboring villages had their own specific variety of dialect.

From North Holland to Friesland, to South Denmark, to East Germany, to North Italy, to Luxembourg, to West Flanders and back to Holland again, there have been - and sometimes still are - countless dialects (and don't forget Yiddish, South-African, etc.). Between those 'language areas' there are no clear borders. The modern 'national' languages have developed through schooling (a political issue). In fact there is a sliding scale from Dutch through 'Limburgs' to German.

While these dialects are sometimes so different, that the people from different areas have such a different vocabulary and pronunciation, that they will not understand each other when they speak fast, the SYNTAX of all these dialects is roughly the same.

That means that the syntax that they share must be very old, much older than you want to accept.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Otharus

[Abramelin]

If you agree with me that Old English must have been very similar to Old Frisian (or Old Dutch if you like) of the early middle ages, then you will know that the syntax has changed.

When Willibrord and Bonifacius came here to convert the 'heathens' they didn't need an interpretor. Why? because they must have spoken the same language.

[Abramelin]

The problem is finding Old English prose, not poetry (like Beowulf).

I remember having read some old English prose of early medieval times that differed quite a lot from later prose.

Now all I could find was this:

Anglo-Saxon prose reader, for beginners, in oldest English (1898)

Author: Baskervill, William Malone; Harrison, James Albert, 1848-1911

Subject: English language -- Old English, ca. 450-1100 Readers

http://archive.org/details/anglosaxonproser00baskuoft

The book gives a translation of some chapters of the Bible in Old English, but doesn't say how old the translation is.