- I Aron not Aaron
- Aron is actually the Scandinavian form of Aaron, thus, yes, related.
In Swedish you find it with two a's if at all only in the Bible. A man with that name usually spells it like you.
However, it is, in Swedish (either spelling) pronounced exactly as you pronounce it.
- II Descends from Skiold, son of Odin
- Descending from Odin is probably as common in Scandinavia (really Scadinavia, but someone added a stroke over the first a) as descending from King Alfred is in England or descending from Conor Mac Nessa in Ireland.
He was king of Uppsala. Elder Uppsala - the archbishopric of Sweden was a few miles away. He was succeeded by his stepson, Niord's son Frey. Unlike Skiold, Frey was also deified. His son Fiolner was not, since he drowned in a vat of mead, as guest of Froda Haddingsson. King of Denmark.
We all thought Asgard was Viking Heaven ... it was.
When Odin tricked himself to real kingship and false godhood in Uppsala, he arranged so his family could keep up the status after he died.
He did that by arranging for a funeral pyre and for his survivors to say "he has gone to Asgard". And explain that that was where he habitually ruled from.
The only Norse concerned Christian author who explicitly does not believe this happened was Paul the Deacon. The story about Odin giving battle luck to the Vinniles after their women had appeared before his balcony with hair dressed as bears (hence long-beards = Lombards) was, he thought, ridiculous. "Because Odin is none other than Mercury, who lived long before this time in Greece".
Btw, setting Odin in the third c. AD is probably based on medium length generations after some known posterity. If we go from Ynglingatal - the Kings' "Length" (list) of Uppsala - he was probably alive in the time of Caesar. If we go by Saxo, there were two different Froda's and the one that was contemporary with Augustus was not the I who received Fiolner, but the II. I disbelieve that. Saxo put either longer reigns or simultaneous ones as consecutive or simultaneous regional series as consecutive national series. You know, Scania (=Scadinavia), Sealand, Fyn, Lolland, Falster, Jutland may have united later than he wanted people to think - and yet he would not pass by any king's name. Hence the doubling of the Frodas.
Someone in India have Krishna in his family tree? Probably there exists such a claim, yes.
Krishna helped the Pandava side, but the Pandavas died without heirs and Krishna's cousin or sth took over.
Krishna was also deified after a funeral pyre - UNLESS in his case there were many accretions between his lifetime and Mahabharata written thousands of years later.
His death is said to be the end of one and the beginning of our present "yuga" or age, and it is put close to the Flood. Flood = 2957 BC, Krishna's death = 3100 sth BC. I e, the memory of his person, if there was one, was kept alive beside the Biblical tradition. Noah when writing down his portion of the Genesis skipped over much of the war (there is more of it in Book of Henoch), but someone else, probably Cham since he was probably ancestor of Indians, kept more details alive.
BUT India wanted to forget there was a Flood between that and themselves. So, an "earlier avatar of same god" saved a king through the Flood (admit, after the Flood Noah was pretty much King, but perhaps he didn't stay so and didn't even want to). And hence Flood was demoted to "before Krishna, Pandavas, Kauravas". Though the latter are pretty recognisable as if not first generation at least second generation nephelim (esp. Bhima).
Hence ALSO insistance on having a LONG tradition. Someone came over thinking - correctly - Flood happened a thousand years earlier, and they would say "what Flood?" and enumerate a false continuity with - essentially - Nod or else "sure there was a Flood, but that was forty thousand years ago".
- III Not a Professor wants no part in fake claims "like Hovind"
- 3:11 the attack on Kent Hovind was not necessary.
He was not condemned for "fraud" but for "tax fraud". Even that was idiotic, but he has a PhD in Education. Ill-deserved, I have read the thesis, but he has made up for that bad Church History (essentially making incorrectly St Athanasius a Proto-Darwinist) by very decent advocacy of Creation Science.
But his PhD is, if ill-deserved, genuine. If someone told you he was condemned for fraud, about the PhD, that is because someone - about him - got the wrong idea.
Kent Hovind STILL In Prison - Son Speaks Out In Personal One-on-One with PPSIMMONS
Here is on allegation Kent Hovind would have been fraudulent when giving references on carbon dating anomalous examples:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Kent Hovind's supposed failure in Carbon Dating Subject
- IV Famous in Iowa, Desmoines, for bringing a lizard that was shot by the police
- [They faked size of lizard in some reports, plus tried to charge him with "tree climbing alligator" because a lizard was not illegal.]
Scripture is as valuable as the transcript is honest.
That one was not. And the dishonest policemen did not exactly found a new community on misrepresenting your lizard, nor did they die martyrs testifying on a false size of it.
THAT is not an argument against factuality of Scripture.
- V Was mistaken for Big Foot in New Mexico
- Hard to believe in Big Foot, when you realise you're him?
I have never been mistaken for Big Foot, but if I were, this would not mean to me Big Foot could'nt exist any more than your story means that.