Nibiru and the Lost Tribes of Israel Connection Part 3

Written by Greg Jenner, 2011, author of

Planet X and the Kolbrin Bible Connection

A research note about the Kolbrin, by Andy Lloyd

Greg makes an excellent case for textual references about the Dark Star as the Kolbrin's Destroyer. This is tantalising material to say the least. So what is the Kolbrin, and what scholarly work can we delve into to get more answers as to the origins of these remarkable writings?

Looking up Kolbrin on Google simply brings up the material offered by the publishers of the Kolbrin Bible. As noted by Greg, the claim is made that the work dates back to the 12th Century. However, this claim does not reflect more general opinion about the origin of the work. The word 'Kolbrin' turns out to be a distortion of the original Welsh Coelbren. Here's a wikipedia entry about Edward Williams (bardic name Iolo Morganwg), who is said to have created the work in the 18th century as part of his widely acknowledged attempts to manufacture ancient druidic works for commercial gain:

Iolo Morganwg developed his own runic system, in Welsh Coelbren y Beirdd ("the Bardic Alphabet"). It was said to be the alphabetic system of the ancient druids. It consisted of 20 main letters, and 20 others "to represent elongated vowels and mutations." These symbols were to be represented in a wooden frame, known as peithynen.

(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iolo_Morganwg)

A kinder interpretation of his creation of the Coelbren is this:

It may well be that it was he who devised the system to fill the gap in Celtic literacy that he felt existed but had been lost. This is usually the interpretation favoured by those who think that the Coelbren are contrived and to explain the lack of any physical evidence that they existed before this point. Even so, this does not alter the fact that since Iolo's time the system has been in more or less continuous use and has now developed a considerable heritage in the process.

(Ref: druidry.org Article no longer available online)

One can already sense problems. Academics do not appear to be involved in work on the Coelbren. Which probably means that they consider it to be a clever fake, albeit one that has become something of a Welsh cultural treasure.

Next we turn our attention to the various myths that swirl around Glastonbury, and the alleged visit there by Joseph of Arimethea. These hardly seems credible to modern eyes, but were certainly taken seriously during mediaeval times. The question in my mind is whether the mediaeval myths can be properly positioned alongside the creation of the Coelbren centuries later. Was the Coelbren a reproduction of ancient material passed down secretly through many generations eager to avoid the attention of pious clerics and, later, witch-hunters? We find ourselves immersed in a more general argument about the transmission of ancient wisdom through the many dark centuries of intellectual prohibition.

Let's look beyond such murky considerations. How about the context of how this work fits into modern academia? Much of the Kolbrin deals with an Egyptian account of the Exodus - which would be startling if authenticated, because it would provide an alternative piece of evidence that the Exodus even took place at all. Biblical scholarship has difficulties with the Exodus as an historical event. There are many competing theories, and if the Kolbrin was accepted by scholars as an authentic work then it would surely become part of that monumental academic argument.

So, how about the Masonic connection? There are certainly druidic orders in Britain, which are quasi-Masonic in character. They don't fall into the standardised set of Masonic orders. According to my book on British Freemasonry by Masonic Grand Master Michael Stayt (The Rungs of the Ladder, 1999), they are 'non-Masonic, but designed to extend Masonic thought'. Their content is largely mystical and intended for Freemasons wishing to further develop their spiritual understanding. Whether the Coelbren is featured in their lore I couldn't say.

That's not to say, however, that Freemasons belonging to the more traditional orders weren't involved in the guarding of such a work, and its eventual transmission. It would be useful if such individuals were able to make their stories public as a way of authenticating how this controversial work came into the public domain in the early 1990s.

Written by Andy Lloyd, 15th September 2009

The Coelbren Alphabet, by Greg Jenner

Hi Andy,

To shed more light on the Coelbren alphabet authenticity, provided below is my contribution to James Leslie's (Ret.) MES Newsletter, Vol. 34 No.2, May 2017:

"In light of the Coelbren script discovered in southern Utah by Steve Shaffer and interpreted by Michael Boutet, I feel compelled to chime in here.

First off, I believe the Coelbren to be a legitimate alphabet. According to [Researchers] Wilson and Blackett, Dafydd ap Gwilym mentioned the alphabet before he died in 1367. And William Owen (1790-1815) published the entire Coelbren alphabet gleaned from ancient times. All this occurred before Edward Williams (Iolo Morganwg) was said to have invented the alphabet near the turn of the 1800’s.

Secondly, Welsh children were taught this alphabet from the use of school charts depicting the language. See example here:

And thirdly, the Coelbren’s meaning was actually in Welsh dictionaries many years ago. This example from 1803. Stating, “This was the original alphabet of the Britons.”

Keep in mind the original Britons were not Anglo-Saxon. (I can only speculate that this might have had something to do with the perplexing animosity toward the alphabet).

The 1803 dictionary goes on to say, “Coelbren y mynaich, or the monkish alphabet, being of Roman letters, [was] adapted for cutting in a similar manner.” So the Welsh Monks had their own version of the Coelbren! A Welsh Monk cipher perhaps?

Let’s say, for argument sake, the Coelbren was indeed made up and invented. Does that mean Welsh history, written down in Coelbren by Welsh school children, would become null and void and struck from the record? Of course not! Writing in Coelbren would be a legitimate practice for the Welsh children, especially if that was the only alphabet they were exposed to when they were young. I guess what I’m trying to say here is we simply cannot throw the Coelbren alphabet out with the bathwater. We can derive legitimate information from this alphabet.

So, yes, researchers can interpret and glean factual based knowledge from a particular alphabet, even if it’s made up. After all, isn’t that why ancient monks and [clandestine] groups used ‘invented’ ciphers and short-hand in the first place? To carry forward and hide factual based information.

Another point I would like to stress here is that Iolo Morganwg was demonized by academia for being high on opium whilst supposedly inventing the Coelbren alphabet, along with his Barddas volumes. This doesn’t hold much weight for me either. Can you honestly say, in all the history of Latin writing, a fellow scribe could not have easily been high or drunk on too much wine from producing a manuscript? It was a very dull and tedious process. Sorry academia, nice try.

[As I've stated in the past] A great place to find a wealth of hidden history is from the Kolbrin MS where, I believe, at least one account was recorded by the Khumry (Welsh descendants) sailing over to North America, well before Columbus. The Khumry used a form of Ogham as well, which tells us the Celts were also in the fray."

Greg Jenner, 2017