Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-09 > 0969943628

From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Lines back to Adam and Eve
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:47:08 -0600

"Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." wrote:
> My final remarks:

And likewise mine.

> (1) Under the authority of "Stewart Baldwin,
> Pat Boren, Todd Farmerie, Bill Lemay,
> Chris Pitt-Lewis, Paul C. Reed,
> William Addams Reitwiesner, Josh Stevens
> [and] Don Stone", mention is made:

This would, I presume, be the FAQ, which states:

}10. Can we discuss Biblical lines here?
}This is not the proper forum for discussing the Biblical
}connections of ancient lines. They are off-topic mostly because
}they're outside the medieval time period (500 AD to 1600 AD).
}While mention of the Biblical connections is permissable,
}discussion should focus on the medieval portions of these lines.

> "The group is open to anyone with an interest
> in genealogy in the time period in question,
> including, but not limited to:
> . . .
> value of pre-historical sources (such as sagas)"

Refering to the Scandinavian sagas reporting relationships falling
WITHIN the medieval time frame. We did not have in mind to include by
this statement, the religious texts of all cultures from all time

> (2) Evaluation is indeed "intrinsically linked
> to one's view of the reliability of the sources";
> but, whether Biblical records are considered
> "authentic" or "sagas", . . . , one cannot
> do scholarly medieval research, be Medieval,
> or be considered a professional medieval
> genealogist, if one does not study, review
> and apply the tools of genealogical research
> to these pedigrees.

False. One only need to apply the tools of genealogical research to
medieval genealogy to be a medieval genealogist, professional or
otherwise. The application of those tools to ancient or modern sources
is not a requirement.

> (3) Discussions of Adam and Eve vs. Darwin
> are NOT the case at hand.

False. It is the case at hand (or at least the precipitate one), as the
wish to avoid this and similar holy wars was largely why such lines were
excluded from the start, and it was only after these two views of
origins were juxtaposed in this thread that I suggested we not go there.





> (4) Biblical pedigrees are topical. They
> do not fall outside the limits of GEN-

False. They are not medieval, and they are not (at least the ones we
are talking about) royal.

> Biblical analysis may
> be used in conjunction with other medieval
> resources, to determine if a given medieval
> genealogical relationship, use, connection
> or pedigree is authentic, within the time-
> period and location under discussion.

False. Medieval relationships cannot be determined by analogy, and the
Bible does not provide any direct testimony regarding medieval times.

> (5) Medieval church intervention against the
> beginning scientific revolution has reversed, as
> many Darwinian scientists smother the memory
> and works of great medieval men, such as
> Archbishop James Ussher.

(irrelevant to medieval genealogy)

> (6) This type of censorship is unwarranted,
> limiting and unnecessary.

There has been no censorship. You have said what you have wished to.

Let's move on.


This thread: