Eve...and three men....you do the math

Great Debates
21

> “Anyone may join the discussion.”

Thankyou. Yes, I realized that… I did say it was a rhetorical question.

> “However, you may find that your thesis is not well-received if you rely on Laurence Gardner and Zecharia Stitchin.”

Received by whom? You? Or all that post here?

First of all, may I say that it is NOT ‘MY’ thesis. I was just introducing a different point of view on the question originally posted.

Secondly, might I say that it is usually those who have not in fact read Sitchin who insist time and time again on calling him ‘Stichin’. I am not saying YOU haven’t read him, but it does seem to be a bit of a pattern.

>"General criticism of their works include: … "

You had introduced the name of Von Daniken in your post, and following that with a comment that speaks of ‘their works’ implies that you are linking his works with those of Sitchin and Gardner.

I just wish to emphasise that I was NOT speaking of Von Daniken’s writings.

> “I recognized Stichin as a Von Daniken wannabe…”

Well, we all see things differently. That is NOT how I ‘recognize’ it.

> “- a lack of attribution for material that they must have acquired elsewhere (unless they are making it up);”

Well speaking ONLY for Sir Lawrence Gardner, he says in his acknowledgements…

"For their invaluable assistance in the compilation of this work, I am indebted to the good offices of the Imperial and Royal Dragon Court and Order (Sarkany Rend 1408), Curia Regis et Ordo Draconis; the President of the European Council of Princes, and the directors of Mediaquest International.

“My particular gratitude is due to HRH Prince Nicholas de Vere von Drakenberg, and to HRH Prince Michael of Albany, for affording me privileged access to their respective household archives…”

From the Foreward to his book ‘Genesis of the Grail Kings’… written by the above named Prince… he says…

"It pleases me, therefore, to convey to readers the fact that Laurence Gardner writes not as an uninitiated commentator, but as an extremely well-informed member of the time-honored school upon which he so eloquently reports.

“In Genesis of the Grail Kings, the author has imparted a good deal of ancient material from the archives of the Imperial and Royal Dragon Court, and has aligned this with a hitherto rarely published classical chronology of events in Old Testament times. The result is a work of scholarly integrity which advances a radically alternative view of history, challenging that which has for too long been foisted upon people by those following a predetermined course of vested interest.”

End quotes.

I think we should try to be open-minded to ALL version’s of our heritage and history.

And hello to you too Tomndebb… nice to meet you.

And Hi LostCause… (interesting name)

> “That is according to the Bible, of course…”

And your ‘of course’ says it all.

There ARE other sources than the Bible. NOT that the Bible is wrong, but just that it actually came later than some other ‘sources’.

Have you read the Enuma Elish? It is a story of a man and a flood and a boat and his being saved etc… and it was written aeons before the story of Noah in the bible.

REALLY didn’t want to get off on an atagonistic note here… but wherever the bible is discussed it seems almost inevitable.

lite

I recognized Stichin as a Von Daniken wannabe who has irritated a number of archaeologists and paleontologists with some rather cavalier claims that do not seem to be supported by the evidence.

Gardner has a similar reputation–exacerbated by the fact that he does not seem to really know the material he is “interpreting.” (Stitchin seems to have read a fair amount of the published works on Sumer. It is difficult to see where Gardner has done likewise.)

General criticism of their works include:

  • a lack of attribution for material that they must have acquired elsewhere (unless they are making it up);
  • “interpretive” drawings of carved pictures with no indication of where the tablets or walls occur and no photogrtaphs of the drawings to provide a comparison between their interpretations and the actual images;
  • translations of known works that do not agree with any known translation of the same documents (or tablets), with no explanation as to why theirs are so different (this occurs both for Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform tablets and for Hebrew Scripture).

Tom~

22

I apologise for leaving in material I had been using for reference to previous posts.

lite

23

Let see, LiteCluster…

Adam and Eve are Biblical characters. The premise of the question assumes that Adam and Eve are real characters. Since Adam and Eve are from the Bible, why shalln’t the Bible be used to answer questions about Adam and Eve, even though it may be a later source?

As for me, I never saw the other sources, so naturally I won’t be citing from them, right?

24

In my somewhat informed opinion, based on having read a significant number of the threads on similar subjects, I would guess that some very large majority of posters will not accept the claims of Sitchin and Gardner–for the reasons I have already outlined.

(Stichin <–> Sitchin was simply a late-night typo. In the context of your remark, however, I am not a proficient typist. I’m curious as to your repeated misspelling of Gardner’s first name. :wink: )

My criticism of Gardner and Sitchin, stands. Placing flowery thank yous into the foreword of a book is the common courtesy that many authors use. However, it is a critical failing of a scholarly work to fail to document the primary sources under investigation so as to provide subsequent students with the ability to re-examine those sources, themselves. Even popular (as opposed to scholarly) works, such as Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel tend to cite their sources so that students may examine whether they have presented the material fairly.

Neither Gardner nor Sitchin are in the habit of providing that material. Each simply makes a claim for what they have “found,” and moves on as if the matter were settled.

In terms of the “quality” of their efforts, Gardner has been making a mint off his claims that he has tracked the genealogy of the descendants of Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene down to the current heirs (who just happen to include his very own patron of the arts), and claims that the “Holy Grail” is this bloodline. And, again, his “evidence” consists mostly of taking disparate statements from widely scattered times and places and hammering them into a “consistent” narrative (in violation of several known historical events) and then filling in the gaps with “information” for which there is neither documentation nor provenance.

Sitchin has been “proving” that the Mesopotamian, Nile Valley, and Meso-American cultures were all “planted” by aliens–ignoring all the evidence that we actually possess of their gradual rise over several millennia at very different times. Meanwhile, he tends to ignore the Indus and Yangtze valley cultures that arose in similar conditions between the rise of the Mesopotamians and the Meso-Americans. (It is amusing, in context, to read the criticisms of Sitchin by his former disciple, Alan Alford.)

25

If Seth married when he was a 100, was it his 85 yr. old sister or the 15 yr. old?

Either way, not a pretty sight is it?

26

The bible sounds like one hell of a Taboo porn story.

27

AFAIK, the law of incest wasn’t there at those times. So it’s not that gross, and I don’t think a 100 year old guy back then look like a graying old man (if one could indeed live up to 600~700 years old, 100 year is like, you like, teenage).

But just mere speculation on my part…

28

AFAIK, the law of incest wasn’t there at those times. So it’s not that gross, and I don’t think a 100 year old guy back then look like a graying old man (if one could indeed live up to 600~700 years old, 100 year is like, you know, a teenager).

But just mere speculation on my part…

29

There are some who simply beleive that Adam & Eve were the first Humans- ie the first Homo Sapiens with a Soul. There could have been plenty of “biological but souless humans” for their sons to breed with.

Or, God could have made more humans. Doesn’t say either way. I think there is some sort of Jewish legend about some sort of not-quite humans that Seth had children by?

Whoever this “Betty Bowers” is, it takes some kind of sicko mind to assume that Cain had sex with his mother. Especially as the line from Adam descended thru Seth, their 3rd son.

30

Cain’s wife was his step-sister.
:wink:

31

I apologise to all posting in this thread.

Obviously I stepped in where angels should fear to tread.

This is a discussion about the Bible, and not about our true beginning’s or our heritage as I had thought. My mistake.

I will leave you to your discussion. Thanks for the responses anyway. I will go back to lurking.

Regards,

lite

32

I thought it was about Planet of the Apes, since there was three dudes there and one chick, but the chick died in hypersleep, and then the other two guys got killed or lobotomacized by the damn dirty apes.

33

Rules of logic need not apply in fairy tales. Now where’s that damn whale? I’m gonna walk out there and give him a good what for!

Fagjunk Theology: Not just for sodomite propagandists anymore.

34

I only mentioned it because my reaction to the title was to think about our Eve for a split-second until I noticed the “and three men etc.” portion. Just one of those random thoughts I have when I’m putting off writing an essay.

35

I hear ya on that one, brother. These days, those are the only kinds of thoughts I have! :wink: