some things are more clear but writings are the easiest to falsify.

the rewriting history thing has been understood for a long time, and it has a terrible effect on cultures, potentially uprooting them from their real ground. it's probably happened so many times and so little of what is claimed to be history, is even legitimate.

the catholic church, for instance, western europe barely even read the bible anyway, but the mentions of enoch are there in genesis and jude to be seen. western europe never saw these books since not long after the compilation of the catholic canonical bible and it wasn't until the 17th century someone bumped into it in ethiopia. and now most "scholars" think that the text is not legitimate, and/or they date it to as recently as 500BC

convenient.

you more or less end up having to decide what you are going to believe, or what you think is suspect. for example, the lack of writings relating to Jesus from his time, doesn't mean nobody other than christians wrote about Him, it could just mean that at first the romans tried to memoryhole christianity. christians held tight onto their books and so we have them now.

anyone who claims that a relatively commonly considered to be legitimate piece of historical writing is not legitimate has nothing to stand on considering this situation. the romans had an obvious reason to try to suppress christianity, because ultimately it was one of the things that ended their rule. first it broke the empire in two, and then completely destroyed it. oh yeah, some homo materialist historian will try to say that it was economics or the mongols or something, and these things had a definite role in the play but to say that christianity and the law that it posits is at odds with the cult of government... yeah, for a reason, and you can read it in several places in the bible what reason governments wouldn't like christians.

nothing has really much changed since then and i don't trust these "scholars" they are just grotesque parrots of propaganda, since that is what most of history is actually, in fact.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

btw, that reminds me.

in the Book of Jasher, the aftermath of the fall of the Tower of Babel appears some very modern words that seem to be naming places like Lombardy and the Seine river, among other things.

this is a version of Genesis that is regarded as maybe not legitimate. but the section in the canonical Genesis is far less detailed in many areas, notably the adam and eve story has way more detail (it depicts it as though the Garden of Eden was an agriculture college and that they did 7 years training though after the theft they were more closely watched), and the parts that describe what happened after Babel and Sodom and Gomorrah are far more detailed as well.

since we fundamentally can't trust especially not long dead "scholars" in the employ of roman elites i prefer to go by the Jasher version of genesis, which seems much closer to reality, and Enoch also, makes it clear that angels were humans, at least by the definition of being able to breed.

this one thing alone completely reframes everything in the old testament describing encounters with angels, the "burnt offerings" and even the cain and abel story, the watchers in Daniel, and other places. people with flying vehicles, and high technology fits the description much better than hypothetical disincarnate superbeings, given recent history like the cargo cults of world war 2.