Well....it's best not to engage in these talks because there's probably over a hundred situations....which might fit into misinformation. But I'll offer you curious episode.
The legend of Adam and Eve lays down a history of usually two sons (sometimes....Seth gets mentioned as the third kid).....being Cain and Abel.
Abel, as you will remember, got killed by Cain. Then some words were spoken and Cain got dispatched out into the 'boonies'. You are left to draw your own conclusions from that point on.
Did any of the three have wives? Well....they had to....in so being....these wives had to be kids of Adam/Eve and there was some ethical issues going on here.
In recent years, the DNA folks have gotten into the middle of this discussion, and through a pretty long flow-chart....come to suggest that there were 10 sons and 18 daughters in this mix.
If Cain and Abel were two of the 28 'kids'....why no other mention than Seth?
In the Greek version of Seth.....the story goes that Seth had to go on some 'adventure' with Eve to the gates of 'the garden'.
Undertaking? Well....they were there to 'ask' for some type of oil/creme/ointment/salve linked to the 'tree of life'.
The legend (told by the Greeks) is that Seth got attacked by some critter on the way to the garden. He was fairly bitten up (sounds like some badger or raccoon attack to me). Seth apparently yelled a good bit and the critter ran off.
9 comments:
What Greek version?
I was reading over the weekend three pieces....so far I've only been able to go back and find the one big reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth#:~:text=On%20the%20way%2C%20Seth%20is,will%20be%20in%20their%20midst.
I'll try to find the other two by Saturday.
One of the long pieces came from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09518207221075316
Another source (I hated their arrangement/color font): https://rejectedscriptures.weebly.com/books-of-adam-and-eve.html#
After a review, only one source listed a discovery date and a suggested origin date, and that was the Wikipedia article. In fact, the second source points out these false texts do quote from the original Genesis account.
Am I mistaken?
And, if I ignore Wikipedia’s blatant issues as a source, it also agrees that LAE is at least 500 years after the fact. If I go by traditional scholarship, the gap jumps to over a thousand years.
I will just say this....before Wiki, there were a million false, marginal or half-true sources of information. You really don't start seeing reliable for sources for historical purposes till the 'age of enlightenment'. I don't just say this for the Biblical stories....there are simply a lot of historical things, which seem to be questionable.
One of my favorite stories with no real ability to prove....the Children's Crusades of 1212. There are actually two legends (one in France, one in Germany). Neither have any true details....other than a paragraph here and there....stating it occurred.
https://schnitzelrepublic.blogspot.com/search?q=children%27s+crusade
By that definition, it is impossible to know that Christopher Columbus, William the Conqueror, Augustus, Alexander the Great, Plato, and Rameses II existed before 2001.
Are you really going to make such a claim?
-Simison
There is enough on each to substantiate 'existence' and most of the accomplishments. But bits are pieces are left to question.
Example: What kind of map did Columbus really have and where did it come from?
Example: How shaky is the whole Oak Island money pit story?
Example: JFK situation, Warren Commission Report and Oswald.
So, if you agree that we can reliably establish the existence of historical figures and events pre-Wikipedia, then what standard are you using?
Because all I did was use the rather innocuous standard of date-to-account relationship reliability. The further removed from the original event/figure, the increased likelihood it is a false account.
The easier period to be certain of events and the context which they occurred....all come after the age of enlightenment. You are helped by multiple people writing on a person, event, or culture.
Prior to the age of enlightenment (my humble thoughts)...you are fairly screwed and left to what one person often said of one single event.
A good example....1184 Erfurt Germany event where a meeting was held on a second floor area with the King (Henry VI) and the Archbishop of Mainz. The Archbishop was peeved over some issues and wanted things squared away. Lot of folks showed up....second floor area, over a latrine pit below. Wood floor collapsed....history says (basically one writer) that sixty folks didn't survive the pit (King and Archbishop apparently did). We are left to believe most of this true. The sixty number? I'm skeptical.
A lot of what we know of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle...would not exist today...if it were not for the copies kept in Bilbao, Spain...protected oddly enough by the Muslim authority at time. Sometimes, our knowledge is preserved only by accident.
As for Wiki....I'll just say that when I read their accounts...I'm often skeptical. It is a politicized unit and you have to pursue secondary sources to validate what you read. The sad thing is that 90-percent of Wiki could be reasonably good effort.
In the end, we are stuck with common sense and asking stupid questions. Obviously, Columbus did have a map, and I'm skeptical enough to believe he might have had two or three maps. He was like you and me....trying to judge the odds that map one, two or three had false data. He sailed on....with just a best guess in the end.
Post a Comment