The Oera Linda Book is (probably) real

Okay, so I've seen this shilled a lot over the years and always assumed it was 19th century schizo nonsense that could be easily debunked, but after some investigation it turns out not only to hold up well under scrutiny, but (dare I say) the case it makes is credible.

For those who are unaware, here's the basic gestalt:
>manuscript discovered in 1867 in the Netherlands
>the document's owner had no understanding of the manuscript besides a knowledge it had been passed down as a family heirloom since time immemorial
>purports to have been created in the 13th century as the latest copy of an incredibly ancient (1000+ years) record of Frisian history, first having been compiled in 600BC
>the manuscript claims to record a history originally told in mythic/oral form that dates back to 2193BC
>according to the OLB, 2193BC was the year of a cataclysm and the date from which they subsequently based their dating system
>this cataclysm happens to align with the 4.2ka BP event (which wasn't known in 1867)
>tells an epic tale of the existence and slow decline of a tribal confederation ("the Fryans") that stretched across western and central Europe...roughly aligns with the Bell Beaker culture
>contains records of (presumably) a root form of Germanic/Indo-European paganism which is monotheistic and centered around the worship of "Wr-alda" ("All-Father")
>recounts (should probably be interpreted as semi-myth) very early Fryan contact with the Phoenicians and Greeks as well as the breakaway of the Celts/Gauls from the Fryans
>claims that gods such as Neptune and Athena were originally mortal Fryan leaders/traders/warriors active in the Mediterranean region in prehistory

That's only a fraction of what's contained in the text, but hopefully gives a taste of its contents.

(continued in next post)

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Although it seems fantastical, there remains no smoking gun disproving its authenticity (despite being in existence for well over a century and having been the target of numerous studies and academic investigations). Hoax theorists have failed to make a credible case explaining why, what, who and how it came into being. Increasingly, it seems the manuscript really does date from the 13th century. While that doesn't discount it being a forgery (albeit from the 13th instead of 19th century), the contents are so at odds with 13th century literature it would be more probable if it did originate from an earlier date. If it is a hoax, the person responsible must have had a savant-level knowledge and access to a huge range of ancient/obscure sources, not to mention incredible attention to detail to leave no smoking gun or glaring conflicts with established history.

    Rather than becoming less likely over time, recent discoveries are corroborating its claims. The 4.2ka BP event is one example, but in many more cases we find local myths that back it up, as well as etymological accounts and the writings of ancient sources. While it can't yet be shown to be legitimate beyond all doubt, the reasonable position is increasingly to err on the side of authenticity.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/g8AANr5.jpg

      Okay, so I've seen this shilled a lot over the years and always assumed it was 19th century schizo nonsense that could be easily debunked, but after some investigation it turns out not only to hold up well under scrutiny, but (dare I say) the case it makes is credible.

      For those who are unaware, here's the basic gestalt:
      >manuscript discovered in 1867 in the Netherlands
      >the document's owner had no understanding of the manuscript besides a knowledge it had been passed down as a family heirloom since time immemorial
      >purports to have been created in the 13th century as the latest copy of an incredibly ancient (1000+ years) record of Frisian history, first having been compiled in 600BC
      >the manuscript claims to record a history originally told in mythic/oral form that dates back to 2193BC
      >according to the OLB, 2193BC was the year of a cataclysm and the date from which they subsequently based their dating system
      >this cataclysm happens to align with the 4.2ka BP event (which wasn't known in 1867)
      >tells an epic tale of the existence and slow decline of a tribal confederation ("the Fryans") that stretched across western and central Europe...roughly aligns with the Bell Beaker culture
      >contains records of (presumably) a root form of Germanic/Indo-European paganism which is monotheistic and centered around the worship of "Wr-alda" ("All-Father")
      >recounts (should probably be interpreted as semi-myth) very early Fryan contact with the Phoenicians and Greeks as well as the breakaway of the Celts/Gauls from the Fryans
      >claims that gods such as Neptune and Athena were originally mortal Fryan leaders/traders/warriors active in the Mediterranean region in prehistory

      That's only a fraction of what's contained in the text, but hopefully gives a taste of its contents.

      (continued in next post)

      Interesting,will investigate.

      Every geographical region obviously must've been like Mesopotamia, except being a little more shit and without developing writing. The Celts were far more connected and advanced than we give them credit far, and it makes sense they had rivals (Basques, too?).

      Neptune can't be a Fryan leader, as the concept comes from Mesopotamia. I would be interested in knowing which aspects of the Etruscan gods are different to their Greek counterparts though; what the European starting position naturally valued as a faith system before the East influenced it.

      Neptune comes from Poseidon and his relationship with horses and involvement in the highest triad means he's among the most IE of Greco Roman deities.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Every geographical region obviously must've been like Mesopotamia, except being a little more shit and without developing writing. The Celts were far more connected and advanced than we give them credit far, and it makes sense they had rivals (Basques, too?).

    Neptune can't be a Fryan leader, as the concept comes from Mesopotamia. I would be interested in knowing which aspects of the Etruscan gods are different to their Greek counterparts though; what the European starting position naturally valued as a faith system before the East influenced it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Every geographical region obviously must've been like Mesopotamia, except being a little more shit and without developing writing
      Agreed. We should be careful about assuming groups were cavemen just because the sources for their society/culture are scant. For what it's worth, sources (e.g. Caesar) attest to the Gauls having a writing system resembling Greek, which is exactly what the OLB claims.

      >Neptune can't be a Fryan leader, as the concept comes from Mesopotamia.
      Like I said, a lot of the claims should be considered myths and not 100% reflections of factual truth. Regarding Neptune, it could simply be the name that derives from the Fryans (in the OLB, he's known as "Nef Teunis"). The concept could be indigenous or derive from elsewhere.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >the document's owner had no understanding of the manuscript besides a knowledge it had been passed down as a family heirloom since time immemorial
    And we know that because he said so? Lmao.

    >this cataclysm happens to align with the 4.2ka BP event (which wasn't known in 1867)
    The cataclysm in the OLB is the flood that sank Atlantis, while the the 4.2ka BP event was just a drought. What's the connection between the flood and the drought?

    an epic tale of the existence and slow decline of a tribal confederation ("the Fryans") that stretched across western and central Europe...roughly aligns with the Bell Beaker culture
    It aligns with what the author (a 19th century Frisian nationalist) considered to be White people. It's just wewuzery: "we, Frisians, wuz all White people".

    records of (presumably) a root form of Germanic/Indo-European paganism which is monotheistic and centered around the worship of "Wr-alda" ("All-Father")
    Yeah, because the author was a Christian, and thus he considered things like idolatry, polytheism and animal sacrifices to be icky. So he made his le based imaginary ancestors into proto-Christians. If you look at other pseudo-pagan forgeries from 18th-early 20th century (like the works of Iolo Morganwg and the Book of Veles) you'll find exactly the same pseudo-Christian monotheistic shit.

    >recounts (should probably be interpreted as semi-myth) very early Fryan contact with the Phoenicians and Greeks as well as the breakaway of the Celts/Gauls from the Fryans
    >claims that gods such as Neptune and Athena were originally mortal Fryan leaders/traders/warriors active in the Mediterranean region in prehistory
    Again, more wewuzery. "We, Frisians, aren't just a small irrelevant Dutch minority, we wuz Greeks and Minoans and shit"

    >Increasingly, it seems the manuscript really does date from the 13th century.
    Why?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >And we know that because he said so? Lmao.
      Corroborated by other sources who knew the family. Read more here:

      https://fryskednis.blogspot.com/2018/02/did-cornelis-over-de-linden-hide.html

      (not a schizo blog, the guy is an academic who's devoted much of his career to the study of the OLB)

      >The cataclysm in the OLB is the flood that sank Atlantis, while the the 4.2ka BP event was just a drought. What's the connection between the flood and the drought?
      Not necessarily Atlantis, but "Atland" (translated to "Old Land"). Possibly a territory/island on the Dutch coast. Drought is the climactic event most associated with the 4.2ka event, but not the only one. You can literally just ctrl-f on the wiki article.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2-kiloyear_event

      >It aligns with what the author (a 19th century Frisian nationalist) considered to be White people. It's just wewuzery: "we, Frisians, wuz all White people".
      No evidence for this, as I've outlined. In the 150+ years since its discovery no one had credibly put forward a hypothesis to explain a hoax.

      >Yeah, because the author was a Christian, and thus he considered things like idolatry, polytheism and animal sacrifices to be icky. So he made his le based imaginary ancestors into proto-Christians.
      It hints at monotheism (perhaps as the root Indo-European religion), but in the OLB much time is spent praising "Frya" and others, suggesting the original monotheism had already started to break down. The idea a devout Christian would spend so much time and effort on a clearly very pagan-influenced work doesn't ring true.

      >Again, more wewuzery. "We, Frisians, aren't just a small irrelevant Dutch minority, we wuz Greeks and Minoans and shit"
      It tells the story of a people who inhabited central/western Europe, not just Frisians. The idea it's talking about a specifically Frisian empire is nonsense. Frisians are one of the many people who can claim descent from the Fryans.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Corroborated by other sources who knew the family. Read more here:
        That's just a bunch of speculation. Those guys could've been lied to by Cornelis, or they could've been in on the hoax. Dunno what's so convincing here.

        >(not a schizo blog, the guy is an academic who's devoted much of his career to the study of the OLB)
        What's his name?

        >Not necessarily Atlantis, but "Atland" (translated to "Old Land"). Possibly a territory/island on the Dutch coast. Drought is the climactic event most associated with the 4.2ka event, but not the only one. You can literally just ctrl-f on the wiki article.
        Lol, sure, the book is choke full of references to Ancient Greek myths and history, but this sunken island called "Atland" is totally not Atlantis.

        >No evidence for this, as I've outlined. In the 150+ years since its discovery no one had credibly put forward a hypothesis to explain a hoax.
        Noe evidence that it is genuine either.

        >The idea a devout Christian would spend so much time and effort on a clearly very pagan-influenced work doesn't ring true.
        Why? There were other devout Christians who created pseudo-pagan forgeries, like Iolo Morganwg in Wales and Mirolyubov in Russia. In all cases they did that to push their own political and cultural ideas, so did the author of the OLB.

        >It tells the story of a people who inhabited central/western Europe, not just Frisians. The idea it's talking about a specifically Frisian empire is nonsense. Frisians are one of the many people who can claim descent from the Fryans.
        So? It still says that Frisians descent from those imaginary "Fryans" who wuz Minoans and shit. That's still wewuzery.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >That's just a bunch of speculation. Those guys could've been lied to by Cornelis, or they could've been in on the hoax. Dunno what's so convincing here.
          The link I provided deals with all the sources we have regarding the discovery of the manuscript. Some claim Cornelis "stole" the manuscript from others in his family, but no one claims it's not real.

          >What's his name?
          Jan Ott. IIRC he was originally a sceptic and only started believing in its authenticity following years of study.

          >Lol, sure, the book is choke full of references to Ancient Greek myths and history, but this sunken island called "Atland" is totally not Atlantis.
          It could be, but who knows? A plausible case could be made that it simply meant "Old Land" and there's no connection to Atlantis. Maybe the concept of Atlantis derived from Atland. We don't know.

          >Noe evidence that it is genuine either.
          No conclusive evidence, sure. I've said as much. But the odds increasingly appear in its favour.

          >Why? There were other devout Christians who created pseudo-pagan forgeries, like Iolo Morganwg in Wales and Mirolyubov in Russia. In all cases they did that to push their own political and cultural ideas, so did the author of the OLB.
          I'm not familiar with either so can't comment much. Clearly there are Christians who have made pagan forgeries, but it's not a connection you would typically make for obvious reasons (totally at odds with one another). The OLB depicts a monotheistic religion slipping into the polytheistic paganism and reflects this in the text. It's not a case of copy-paste Christianity with pagan aesthetics bolted on as you're claiming.

          >So? It still says that Frisians descent from those imaginary "Fryans" who wuz Minoans and shit. That's still wewuzery.
          That's to be expected considering the narrative it tells is limited to the Frisian region of the broader Fryan civilisation. If there was a record from Saxony or Sweden it would likely focus more on those specific areas.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The link I provided deals with all the sources we have regarding the discovery of the manuscript. Some claim Cornelis "stole" the manuscript from others in his family, but no one claims it's not real.
            Well, maybe it's true. Looks like he's referencing documents in Dutch, which i can't read, so I won't comment on that.

            >Jan Ott. IIRC he was originally a sceptic and only started believing in its authenticity following years of study.
            Thanks, is he a historian or a linguist? Can't find much about him in English.

            > Clearly there are Christians who have made pagan forgeries, but it's not a connection you would typically make for obvious reasons (totally at odds with one another). The OLB depicts a monotheistic religion slipping into the polytheistic paganism and reflects this in the text.
            That's exactly how Christians saw the history of the world religions for centuries: that everyone used to worship the single God of the Old Testament, but later everyone but the israelites slipped into paganism. Christian historians in the 18th-19th century even used to invent elaborate theories about how every mother-goddess is actually the corrupted memory of the Noah's ark, or how every sun god is Moses etc. So, "monotheism slipping into paganism" was a mainstream idea back then, and exactly what a 19th century Christian would write.

            Also, in my own native language I read some other criticism of the Oera Lind book: that it was apparently written on modern paper and then "aged" with smoke and that it borrowed fragments from some French book. Does Ott address any of that?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Well, maybe it's true. Looks like he's referencing documents in Dutch, which i can't read, so I won't comment on that.
            Just skimmed through the link and it seems he doesn't give direct account of the sources (thought he did, my mistake), but links them in his referencing.

            This link contains an extract from a 1949 book discussing the OLB's origins, including accounts from sources close to the family (read from Chapter 1 onwards):

            https://fryskednis.blogspot.com/2011/11/um-forum-posts-part-16-november-24-29.html

            >Thanks, is he a historian or a linguist? Can't find much about him in English.
            Linguist I believe. Doesn't seem to have much of an online presence outside the blog and some OLB-related social media unfortunately.

            >Also, in my own native language I read some other criticism of the Oera Lind book: that it was apparently written on modern paper and then "aged" with smoke and that it borrowed fragments from some French book. Does Ott address any of that?
            Watch here from 33:44:

            ?t=2026

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Linguist I believe.
            Really? I've skimmed through the blog and he seems to be saying some pretty schizo things, like how the English word "enter" is of Germanic origin, for example. But OK.

            >Watch here from 33:44:
            I watched it, and it's not very convincing. Sure, one of the experts said something stupid, but Ott just dismisses the other one and the modern study immediately, and doesn't provide any sources other than a couple posts on some forum. Besides, he only deboonks the idea of aging the books with a "liquid", but I read that it was aged with smoke from fire.

            It isn't inconceivable that an ancient people had vague pro-freedom ideas. That's a pretty universal perspective across all periods.

            harping about how important it is to have elected officials, hatred of monarchy
            Low-level democracy was common among tribal communities. Again, not implausible.

            -feminism
            The OLB describes an obvious patriarchy run by male tribal chiefs. In addition to their religious function, folk mothers were symbols around which to create a sense of identity among the constituent tribes. Only on rare occasions do they appear to directly involve themselves in governance.

            wewuzery
            Again, hardly unique to the 19th century.

            [...]
            Per the OLB, its first writings were simply copies of statements on walls. It wasn't envisioned as a great piece of literature or profound religious text, but a historical record of their people, achievements, myths, etc.

            >It isn't inconceivable that an ancient people had vague pro-freedom ideas. That's a pretty universal perspective across all periods.
            >Low-level democracy was common among tribal communities. Again, not implausible.
            Sure, but the book still feels extremely modern. Even ancient texts concerned with politics and statehood (like Plato or Confucius) are absolutely nothing like the OLB. And it seems to be too much of a coincidence that it got discovered at the time when those ideas were in vogue.

            >It wasn't envisioned as a great piece of literature or profound religious text, but a historical record of their people, achievements, myths, etc.
            Yeah, but genuine ancient historical records and myths are usually neither this ideologically-charged nor as dry and inoffensive to modern sensibilities as the OLB.

            Anyway, thanks for an interesting conversation. I understand that there's nothing conclusive (and probably won't be, as it doesn't look like many scholars even bother to investigate the book), but, gotta be honest, unless the content of the OLB is corroborated by some other newly discovered sources, I'll probably never believe that it's genuine. It just feels too much like a product of 19th century liberal Romantic nationalism, and too similar in spirit and content to other post-Enlightenment forgeries.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >(translated to "Old Land")
        According to who? You? The book? That totally not schizo blog? And on what basis? Fact of the matter is not a single Germanic language has ever had a word spelled "at" that can be translated as "old". In Old Frisian it was "ald", in modern West Frisian it is "âld", modern Dutch "oud", in German "alt", etc.
        And "Atland" wasn't a new term completely unheard of before Oera Linde was "discovered", the term was first used by the professional Swedish wewuzzer Olof Rudbeck in the 17th century and he explicitly uses the word in reference to Atlantis, placing the mythical Greek island in Sweden.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The cataclysm in the OLB is the flood that sank Atlantis
      Doggerland (Beleriand)

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's possible the Atland myth was wrongly attributed by the Fryans to the 4.2ka event and originally referenced an earlier event such as the submergence of Doggerland. Maybe there was a cataclysmic flood in 4.2ka (which didn't terraform the land, but did have a catastrophic impact) and over time earlier flood myths got blended together with it.

      No evidence for this, just speculating.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Free to read
    https://sacred-texts.com/atl/olb/index.htm

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >>the manuscript claims to record a history originally told in mythic/oral form that dates back to 2193BC
    Nah, nothing in the book reads like an actual ancient text (like the Old Testament, the Rig Veda, the Iliad etc.). Everything reads exactly like what a 19th century liberal Romantic nationalist would write.
    >obsessing over liberty and personal freedom
    >the burning hatred of slavery
    >hatred of priesthood
    >constant harping about how important it is to have elected officials, hatred of monarchy
    >proto-feminism
    >nationalistic wewuzery
    >praising pagan ancestors while sanitizing paganism as much as possible (no idols, no sacrifices, no polytheism)
    Sorry, there's no way in hell any of that shit was really written by ancient people.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/g8AANr5.jpg

      Okay, so I've seen this shilled a lot over the years and always assumed it was 19th century schizo nonsense that could be easily debunked, but after some investigation it turns out not only to hold up well under scrutiny, but (dare I say) the case it makes is credible.

      For those who are unaware, here's the basic gestalt:
      >manuscript discovered in 1867 in the Netherlands
      >the document's owner had no understanding of the manuscript besides a knowledge it had been passed down as a family heirloom since time immemorial
      >purports to have been created in the 13th century as the latest copy of an incredibly ancient (1000+ years) record of Frisian history, first having been compiled in 600BC
      >the manuscript claims to record a history originally told in mythic/oral form that dates back to 2193BC
      >according to the OLB, 2193BC was the year of a cataclysm and the date from which they subsequently based their dating system
      >this cataclysm happens to align with the 4.2ka BP event (which wasn't known in 1867)
      >tells an epic tale of the existence and slow decline of a tribal confederation ("the Fryans") that stretched across western and central Europe...roughly aligns with the Bell Beaker culture
      >contains records of (presumably) a root form of Germanic/Indo-European paganism which is monotheistic and centered around the worship of "Wr-alda" ("All-Father")
      >recounts (should probably be interpreted as semi-myth) very early Fryan contact with the Phoenicians and Greeks as well as the breakaway of the Celts/Gauls from the Fryans
      >claims that gods such as Neptune and Athena were originally mortal Fryan leaders/traders/warriors active in the Mediterranean region in prehistory

      That's only a fraction of what's contained in the text, but hopefully gives a taste of its contents.

      (continued in next post)

      Forgot to mention that another thing that makes the OLB (and other similar forgeries, like the Book of Mormon) feel very inauthentic is that there's zero weird or goofy stuff that you can see in actual ancient texts.
      Like, in the OLB you'll never see anything like sparrows shitting on some dude's eyes while he is asleep making him blind, or the queen having sex with a horse as part of a horse sacrifice ritual. On the contrary, it's all very solemn, very sanitized and clearly tailored to the tastes of post-Enlightenment 19th century Christians.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It isn't inconceivable that an ancient people had vague pro-freedom ideas. That's a pretty universal perspective across all periods.

      harping about how important it is to have elected officials, hatred of monarchy
      Low-level democracy was common among tribal communities. Again, not implausible.

      -feminism
      The OLB describes an obvious patriarchy run by male tribal chiefs. In addition to their religious function, folk mothers were symbols around which to create a sense of identity among the constituent tribes. Only on rare occasions do they appear to directly involve themselves in governance.

      wewuzery
      Again, hardly unique to the 19th century.

      [...]
      Forgot to mention that another thing that makes the OLB (and other similar forgeries, like the Book of Mormon) feel very inauthentic is that there's zero weird or goofy stuff that you can see in actual ancient texts.
      Like, in the OLB you'll never see anything like sparrows shitting on some dude's eyes while he is asleep making him blind, or the queen having sex with a horse as part of a horse sacrifice ritual. On the contrary, it's all very solemn, very sanitized and clearly tailored to the tastes of post-Enlightenment 19th century Christians.

      Per the OLB, its first writings were simply copies of statements on walls. It wasn't envisioned as a great piece of literature or profound religious text, but a historical record of their people, achievements, myths, etc.

  6. 1 year ago
    AVE TARZANVS AZELON

    Neptune was a horselord who fled the sinking of Doggerbank, which used to be down-river of the Elbe, and the endstop of the amber-tin traderoutes going down to egypt (provably so)
    Nef-teunis is a mix of the northsea word "Nifl" from "Niflgard" and Teunis which is a phoenecian word for "harbour."
    Neptune literally means NephilimHarbour, because it is the city of the underworld.
    Where is this sunken city?
    Picrel.
    Source;
    Internet + IQ

    • 1 year ago
      AVE TARZANVS AZELON
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Tun is Germanic for town,so why jump further out to Phoenician? Seems irresponsible.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        hat's just what Phoenician shoehorning Black folk are anon. Imagine bronze age Nordics being influenced by p*nics when they had Unetice and Mycenaeans to look up to and adopt culture from. Couldn't be me.

      • 1 year ago
        AVE TARZANVS AZELON

        germanics are a coastal people.
        for all we know, tunis and tun are cognates of the same thing meaning "haven".
        it is not unheard of that a language has several words for living spaces of the same sort.
        spoiler alert;
        because they never ceased to use the other translation.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >tunis and tun are cognates of the same thing meaning "haven".
          Germanic term for heaven is hemm/himm/himmel which etymologically conencted to word "stone", probably a connection with stone weapon of a thunder deity.

          • 1 year ago
            AVE TARZANVS AZELON

            haven as in København, Bremenhaven, Le Havre. not heaven, you absolute moron.
            Hafnar is norse for harbour.
            inb4 "but muh himmeløye=himalaya"
            shut the frick up. you do my language a dishonor by letting it slop off your illiterate tongue, and your efforts are a disgrace to me.
            Yes me, personally.
            go speak latin instead, bumfrick.
            i loathe every second of my existence in which my awareness of your comments persist.
            and if it does not cease, God please end me.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            wtf anon, i didnt even said it was connected to le.poojeet mountains. Himmel derives from PIE deity Perkwunos' (Thor) stone hammer weapon
            PIE: *h2eḱ-, 'sharp',
            PIE: *h2éḱmōn (gen. *h2ḱmnós; loc. *h2ḱméni), 'stone, stone-made weapon' > 'heavenly vault of stone',
            Indo-Aryan: *Haćman,
            Vedic: áśman, 'stone, sling-stone, thunderbolt',
            Avestan: asman, 'stone, sling-stone, heaven',
            Greek: ákmōn (ἄκμων), 'anvil, meteoric stone, thunderbolt, heaven',
            Balto-Slavic: *akmen-,
            Lithuanian: akmuõ, 'stone',
            Latvian: akmens, 'stone',
            Germanic: *hemō (gen.*hemnaz, dat. *hemeni), 'heaven',
            Gothic: himins, 'heaven',
            Old English: heofon, Old Frisian: himel, Old Saxon: heƀan, Old Dutch: himil, Old High German: himil, 'heaven',
            Old Norse: himinn, 'heaven',

          • 1 year ago
            AVE TARZANVS AZELON

            connecting haven to himmel just shows you are wasting your life trying to decode language.
            you are simply not suited for it.
            it is my sincere advice you find another hobby before you find yourself sad and alone at 40 with 0 skills and a skewed understanding of history due to a dyslexic headcanon cultivated on hopes and dogwhistles overheard on c-list podcasts.
            i had a second of remorse for you, but when replying like this without seeing your original fault despite told what it was, i can with full confidence tell you that you are cognitively disabled and your unawareness of such makes you a danger to your own sanity.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I never knew why the english used that word for port
            Thanks.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Tun is Germanic for town,so why jump further out to Phoenician?
        phoenicians=germans

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's fake. It's gay. And so is OP

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No, it's completely bogus.

    The first point is that it's not actually a Pagan/Asatru/whatever text, it's a Christian one. The big tl;dr here is that at the time the book was written (1860s), the Calvinists were claiming that the Netherlands were Christianized in the 1500s by Calvin. They used this as a justification for a bunch of bullshit regarding philosophy that doesn't really matter here, just that because Christianity has a STARTING DATE in the Netherlands, certain things are justified. The Libertarians/Libertines (this is a translation of Dutch term, it doesn't quite mean what either of those terms mean in English), meanwhile, argued that actually, because Yahweh had been around since Creation, man had never really not been Christian. The problem is that they lacked scriptural evidence to support this theory. The Oera Linda book is one of these.

    It posits that the ancient Dutch people (circa 3000BC) practiced a form of trinitarian monotheism in line with (Protestant) Christian beliefs. We know that this wasn't the case. Firstly, 3000BC, the Netherlands would be inhabited by NHG and PIE peoples, neither of whom would speak Old Frisian. Well, no, it's not really Old Frisian, it's a sort of mangled pseudo Old Frisian, which is actually a descendant of PIE, but it's not PIE. It also is very clearly a constructed language, because the author fricks up how such a language would work CONSTANTLY. Secondly, as others have mentioned, the religion of the so called ancient Dutch is just wrong. They would have been polytheists worshiping a deity called Dyeus Phter (literally, in 3000BC he still would have been called that) among a vast array of other Gods and Goddesses, rather than the singular-yet-tridentine monotheistic Goddess (Feminine).

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Thirdly, and this goes back to the language, it's obviously concocted because the text not only uses words from non-IE sources (like "marktje", meaning market, which ultimately comes from an Etruscan root), but it also uses words from OTHER IE languages that couldn't have existed at the time. The text argues that the Frisians came from the Himalayas (not the steppe, so we can see that this text is just flat out invented as we KNOW where the ancestors of the Dutch were in 3000BC), but the word used is an obvious archaization of "Himalaya", which is ultimately from Sanskrit (Hima + alaya = lit. snow house). If the ancient Frisians left there in 3000BC, why are they using a word to refer to their home that wouldn't be invented until over two thousand years later by an entirely separate people? We can actually constructed a Proto-Germanic cognate to "Himalaya", it would be "*gimaz *slima", lit. "winter slime", which would enter Old Frisian as "gimslim". The *sley- root in PIE means "that which lays", so in PG it came to refer to a mucus layer, but in PII it came, with an agent suffix, to mean "that around which people are".

      But, they would be speaking PIE in 3000BC anyways, so it should be something like "*ghimosleyos" (you can see where PG and PII diverge in that word, which is really neat). And... It's not. But, hey, the author forgot that Old Frisian was a synthetic language, meaning that he frequently drops the grammatical suffixes and instead uses Modern Dutch grammar, so, he's literally not speaking PIE in several senses of the word.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Thirdly, and this goes back to the language, it's obviously concocted because the text not only uses words from non-IE sources (like "marktje", meaning market, which ultimately comes from an Etruscan root), but it also uses words from OTHER IE languages that couldn't have existed at the time. The text argues that the Frisians came from the Himalayas (not the steppe, so we can see that this text is just flat out invented as we KNOW where the ancestors of the Dutch were in 3000BC), but the word used is an obvious archaization of "Himalaya", which is ultimately from Sanskrit (Hima + alaya = lit. snow house). If the ancient Frisians left there in 3000BC, why are they using a word to refer to their home that wouldn't be invented until over two thousand years later by an entirely separate people? We can actually constructed a Proto-Germanic cognate to "Himalaya", it would be "*gimaz *slima", lit. "winter slime", which would enter Old Frisian as "gimslim". The *sley- root in PIE means "that which lays", so in PG it came to refer to a mucus layer, but in PII it came, with an agent suffix, to mean "that around which people are".

      But, they would be speaking PIE in 3000BC anyways, so it should be something like "*ghimosleyos" (you can see where PG and PII diverge in that word, which is really neat). And... It's not. But, hey, the author forgot that Old Frisian was a synthetic language, meaning that he frequently drops the grammatical suffixes and instead uses Modern Dutch grammar, so, he's literally not speaking PIE in several senses of the word.

      The problem here is that you hinge your argument on the state of things in 3000 BC. No one is talking about 3000 BC, let alone the Oera Linda book. The earliest date we can discern in the OLB is 2193 BC.

      The OLB claims to have been first compiled in written form in 600BC. It details myths/oral history/writings from earlier, but obviously not in the language of those times.

      >it's a sort of mangled pseudo Old Frisian, which is actually a descendant of PIE, but it's not PIE. It also is very clearly a constructed language, because the author fricks up how such a language would work CONSTANTLY.
      Many would disagree with you, including celebrated scholars of Old Frisian from the time. Keep in mind the discovery of the OLB provoked intense scholarly debate in the 1860s/70s. You don't achieve this kind of conflicted reaction by being the jumbled mess you make it out to be.

      >They would have been polytheists worshiping a deity called Dyeus Phter (literally, in 3000BC he still would have been called that) among a vast array of other Gods and Goddesses, rather than the singular-yet-tridentine monotheistic Goddess (Feminine).
      Did you read the summary I gave in OP? They worshipped a deity known as "Wr-alda" (a male, All-father figure), in addition to figures such as Frya, etc. It's not out of the question to assume this was an incarnation of Dyeus Phter c. 2000 BC.

      >The text argues that the Frisians came from the Himalayas
      Regarding the Himalaya stuff, I agree this is one of the more fantastical elements. One possible explanation I've come across is that the etymology provided in the OLB is how the Fryans understood the name - sankskrit being a fellow IE language (albeit distant) after all. Once again, it's better to interpret some parts of the text as myth/half-truth instead of 100% fact.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >The earliest date we can discern in the OLB is 2193 BC.
        3000BC is the date that gives the OLB the most credence, moving in either direction just opens up more problems. The entire bit about Min-Erva is similarly just not possible given the timeframe (1,600BC).

        >Many would disagree with you
        People who actually study Old Frisian do not.

        >religion
        Firstly, their society is lead by a matriarchal priesthood interpreting the will of a Goddess and directing an agrarian and egalitarian society. That is not how the people living in the region between 3000BC and... well, really ever, lived, and it's not how they viewed political legitimacy. Secondly, Wr-Alda is routinely referred to as both male and female in the text, as the author was, as mentioned, a Christian who did not believe that Yahweh had a gender; "Wr-Alda" does not mean "sky father" or "all father", it means "Oldest Being", according to the text. The actual All-Father, Odin, is just a mortal chieftain.

        >Fryans understood the name
        The text is a fiction, which is why they are even the "Fryans", in mimicry of the Norse "Freyja", deriving from PG "*frawjǭ"; the actual Old Frisian cognate is "frouwe". *frawjǭ itself derives from the masculine from *frawjo (lacking nasalization in the terminal vowel), which ultimately derives from a construction from PIE "*prohwos".

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >3000BC is the date that gives the OLB the most credence, moving in either direction just opens up more problems. The entire bit about Min-Erva is similarly just not possible given the timeframe (1,600BC).
          Can you expand on these points? Why is this?

          >People who actually study Old Frisian do not.
          Evidently they did and still do. I linked a blog earlier by a Frisian linguist who has spent a decade writing on it.

          >Firstly, their society is lead by a matriarchal priesthood
          Led by men with female vestal virgin-type priesthood who performed a mainly symbolic function.

          >The text is a fiction, which is why they are even the "Fryans", in mimicry of the Norse "Freyja", deriving from PG "*frawjǭ";
          As I said, there's a blog by a Frisian linguist I linked in the thread earlier. Consider checking that out. Deep linguistic stuff isn't my area of expertise.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I linked a blog earlier by a Frisian linguist
            Source that Jan Ott is a linguist not a random schizo? Can't find anything about him other than the Oera Linda shit.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Matriarchal priesthood
          Wasn't this a popular 19th-early 20th century romanticist/occultist belief about secret witch cult societies of paganism that later got Gimbutas'd.
          To my knowledge that belief has been provven false, but maybe I'm wrong.
          You can read something like that with arthur machen's literature. Some of it I mean.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, it's a meme started by this Swiss guy in the 19th century. He believed that before the creation of patriarchal pagan religions there was a more ancient one that was more woman-centric and led by priestesses.
            The Oera Lind book repeats the meme by saying how le evil priests corrupted the old religion of Frya into polytheism and idolatry. Of course it's all bullshit with zero evidence to support it.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >root form of Germanic/Indo-European paganism which is monotheistic and centered around the worship of "Wr-alda" ("All-Father")
    Wtf even is a wralda, is this some sort of mockery of PIE Dyeus Pater. And not even correct, Germanics had many sky deities alongside the main one they had. Storm defined sky deities in Bith Germanic and Celtic beliefs.
    >recounts (should probably be interpreted as semi-myth) very early Fryan contact with the Phoenicians and Greeks as well as the breakaway of the Celts/Gauls from the Fryans
    lmao
    >claims that gods such as Neptune and Athena were originally mortal Fryan leaders/traders/warriors active in the Mediterranean region in prehistory
    Mycenean deities of Napata and Atana were neither Germanic in origin, they were cultural and religious concepts ended up beind unique cults of deities.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Wtf even is a wralda, is this some sort of mockery of PIE Dyeus Pater.
      That's the most common interpretation, yes.

      > And not even correct, Germanics had many sky deities alongside the main one they had. Storm defined sky deities in Bith Germanic and Celtic beliefs.
      We know little about Germanic paganism, let alone Germanic paganism from 1000+ BC. No one is in a position to be making conclusive statements about what they believed.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    A good litmus test for if a book is fake or not, does it push any narratives that were politically convenient in the context it was "discovered" in?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Because its well known a lot of works (esp of history) reflect the time they're written in more than anything else.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You're just piggingbacking on the above posters you spinless brainlet

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        And?
        Is the sky no longer blue because a moron said the sjy is blue?
        Is it green because a wicket smaht credential man said its green?

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Aww sweet!

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Hoax theorists have failed to make a credible case explaining why, what, who and how it came into being.
    Here's the other side of the story; here's the truth.

    >manuscript discovered in 1867 in the Netherlands
    Coincidentally, I'm sure, by Cornelis over de Linden, who was obsessed with religious history, Freemasonry and Frisian nationalism.

    >the document's owner had no understanding of the manuscript
    Because he was given the document by his acquaintances Eelco Verwijs (an archivist and academic researcher in the field of medieval Dutch literature, who did the linguistic side of things) and Piet Paaltjens (a famous poet with a penchant for pranks and mockery, who did the artistic side of things). Those two wrote the Oera Linda book as a joke in the mid-1860s, then cut a local nationalist in on their hoax and told him to invent an origin story for it and see how far they could take their joke before being found out.

    >purports to have been created in the 13th century as the latest copy of an incredibly ancient (1000+ years) record of Frisian history, first having been compiled in 600BC
    However, the paper on which it was written has been shown to be mid-19th century. Not only that, but it was made using mulched wood, using an industrial process that appeared in the country some seventeen years before the books publication.

  13. 1 year ago
    AVE TARZANVS AZELON

    if you want linguistic insight into frisian/yamna history, you might get better results from an actual frisian over the average latinized university dweller.
    no amount of second hand bookreading can make up for living within the language of study.
    I do agree jan ott delves into schizo theory though, as he simply didn't have the internet resources and genetic studies we take for granted right now.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It doesn't even explain where we are on the time wheel right now. Or why the allfather made finda this way.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What event happened 4.2k years ago

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >purports to have been created in the 13th century as the latest copy of an incredibly ancient (1000+ years) record of Frisian history, first having been compiled in 600BC
    >Germanics having a literary tradition at all prior to 800 AD
    Atlantis is realer than this lmao

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      having a literary tradition at all prior to 800 AD
      Only way this isn't true is if it only counts when you have longer literary works (excluding runic inscriptions and various shorter documents) that aren't transations (excluding e.g. Ulfilas Bible), and are written in the vernacular (excluding e.g. the Getica), but then nobody in 8th century Western Europe had any literature since nobody wrote original literary works in the vernacular at the time.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the Ulfilas bible was made by a Christian (Roman) missionary precisely because the Germans (Goths) had no written language, and futhark wouldn't come into existence for another century or two at the earliest

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Elder Futhark predates Ulfilas Bible, earliest known inscription was made in the late 2nd century AD. The first inscription of any Germanic word was even earlier, the Negau helmet, written in an Alpine script in the 4th century BC. Also, Ulfila was far from a complete foreigner, the man was raised among the Goths, hence his Gothic name.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            This wtf

            Gothic even had its own derivative runic script.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          moron alert

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Germans (Goths)
          false
          goth weren't germans, it was scandi/baltic/slavic confederacy

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >goth weren't germans, it was scandi/baltic/slavic confederacy
            why Gothic language was a Germanic language, Seymour?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >why Gothic language was a Germanic language, Seymour?
            because that what you take for gothic was actually anglo saxon that migrated to crimea after norman conquest

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >gothic was actually anglo saxon
            myeh.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            goths=gits
            they were orkz

          • 1 year ago
            AVE TARZANVS AZELON

            they are descendants of Goðan.
            Written down as Goths as Goð=Goth.
            Goðan was the main god-figure among the wheat exporters who sold it to Egypt, and the scribe-lord version of Odin comes from them equating Goðan with Thoth.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Truly schizo excellence. Reminds me.of the philistines were hiperborean thing I once read.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They weren't germans from germany, however they were germanic speaker from from Gotland. Which makes them germanic, as germanic as the burgundians maybe.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Gotland
            populated by Slavs

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Slavs in Scandinavia
            besides the fact Slavs emerged as a nation from the Venedi later, there is no evidenc ethat Slavs or proto-Slavic presence in Sweden

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            yet they were [resent in both sweden and norway and up to the rhine

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They don't seem to have left many traces them.

            >Gotland
            populated by Slavs

            Who spoke germanic, AKA germanics, slav is a language family and the goths had already migrated into the roman empire long before slavs expanded beyond their swamp.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Germanics
      frisians are not germanics tho

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I own a physical copy because I'm sure it'll get banned soon enough for wrong think.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ex JW 16 years

    I don't really know how to describe what opened my eyes, but it all started with asking my mom about why we don't research our religion, or ever cross reference other bibles. As was expected, no answer, just a random quote from the bible completely taken out of context to fit that moment.

    So, against everything I was told, I researched the JWs, my former religion. I was fricking dumbfounded. I was in shock. Every website, every search engine, youtube and b***hute was littered with sexual abuse allegations, active court cases we as witnesses never get told about.

    I struggled to find anything positive anywhere about the JWs outside of the JW website.

    I later asked my mom why, if our religion was so good, and so correct did it bear such horrible fruit? Why did nothing but turmoil, scandal, suicide, death, shunning, and misery surround the JWs?

    I was shunned later that week, so I left. I have not turned back in over 9 years. 2 of the people I used to know at Kingdom Hall have committed suicide.

    Its a cult. The people there, with the exception of like a handful of people know it's a cult.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong thread, m8. This one is for paganschizos, not JWschizos.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >10/26/21

      Wrong thread, it’s the other one that’s about witnesses. But I’ll throw out my two cents. They are officially labeled a cult by the ACA. But they pay about 50k and submit certain requests every 2 years to keep their name officially off the govt cult list.

      They have been officially kicked out of 41 countries, jws that are badly brainwashed or in denial will tell you it’s because they’re being unjustly persecuted because they have the truth or whatever. But that’s not it at all. What they do is take their shit into other countries, start fricking off doing all thier gay shunning and completely twist and mistranslate the Bible to scare jws and get them to do what they want.

      Then the government comes along and is like
      >what the frick are you jws doing

      A little bit of investigating and the chips start falling. Pedophilia, rape, sexual and mental abuse, embezzlement, psychological abuse, members killing them selves, and the list goes.

      Then after the jws frick up, and shit starts flying they back away throw their hands up and are like
      >what did we do, your just doing this to us because we have the truth, stop picking on us

      Then they turn around and brainwash the jws even more and tell them they are being persecuted because they are following God. It’s all one big mind frick

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *