Main Page: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
<ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0.2em 0;"> | <ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0.2em 0;"> | ||
<li>[[FRYAS TOBIRÉD|<div class="emoji big flag fs"></div> <span class="fryas" style="font-size: 110%; line-height: 1.35;">Fryas</span>]] — edited transcription (Ott, 2025)</li> | <li>[[FRYAS TOBIRÉD|<div class="emoji big flag fs"></div> <span class="fryas" style="font-size: 110%; line-height: 1.35;">Fryas</span>]] — edited transcription ([[Jan Ott|Ott]], 2025)</li> | ||
<li>[[Deutsche_Übersetzungen|<div class="emoji big flag de"></div> Deutsch]] — Stafford, Wallis: zum Teil</li> | <li>[[Deutsche_Übersetzungen|<div class="emoji big flag de"></div> Deutsch]] — Stafford, Wallis: zum Teil</li> | ||
<li>[[English Translations|<div class="emoji big flag uk"></div> English]] — Ott 2025</li> | <li>[[English Translations|<div class="emoji big flag uk"></div> English]] — Ott 2025</li> | ||
Latest revision as of 20:32, 20 February 2025
Codex Oera Linda
- To begin reading the Oera Linda, select a language:
- Old translations
Various Studies
- Fryas based fonts
- Word studies
- Grammar studies
- Studies Nederlandstalig (in Dutch language)
- Geographic locations
Links
News
any time — Latest wiki changes
24 Jan. 2025 — Raw transcription finished and linked to from translations.
10 Sept. 2024 — A raw transcription will be provided again (sample). The edited version will be presented as proper chapters in Fryas language and script (sample).
8 Sept. — New improved Standskrift font available on the Fonts page. The old font is available as a separate download.
20 Aug. — The chapter numbering system has been revised. To find the current name/code of a chapter, use the conversion table on the Chapter structure page.
Some theses (draft)
- If it were possible to explain in a scholarly article why Oera Linda cannot be authentic, this would have been done long ago.
- Jensma's 2004 dissertation on Oera Linda is premised on the assumption that it is a 19th-century creation and does not answer the question of why the manuscript or its contents cannot be authentic.
- The alleged evidence against authenticity was given in an 1876 Dutch-language pamphlet and is so lacking in rigor that no one has ever bothered to translate it or confirm its arguments and conclusions.