Should we cut the Irish line to Adam & Eve?

We've had to make compromises, and that's a good way to work when people have different ideas.

There is no doubt that the line from the Irish kings back to Magog is mostly fictional. The Irish kings are only documented back to about 600. Before that, there are a thousand years of names that weren't recorded until the 18th century, which happens to be a period of wholesale genealogical invention.

There is also no doubt that whoever invented the Irish line back to Magog was trying to hit the Biblical Magog. Unfortunately, the two Magogs ended up living hundreds of years apart. If you went through the Irish line and tried to guess at birth years, you could not get back far enough to line up with the Bible. There is no way to make them the same person.

Even if we think there might have been an oral tradition, we would have to think that it was perfectly preserved for 3,000 years. That no one ever wrote it down, even though they wrote down other less spectacular lines. That never once in 3,000 was anyone ever tempted to add, change or invent any part of the line. And, that the Irish somehow preserved a tradition that shows the Bible is wrong about the dating . That's a lot to ask.

Even though the line is mostly fictional, I agree that it is worth preserving on Geni. Even if it's an 18th century invention, it's now part of our collective history. We have a text. We have no way to prove or disprove it. So, like good genealogists, we keep a copy in case we find something else. But -- it's not possible to connect the two men.

One major problem is that Geni looks for the shortest line. So, someone with this line through the Irish kings would always find a line back to Adam through a fictional descent. In other words, Geni will ignore lines that have a greater of being right (arguably, depending on your religious beliefs) in favor of this one that is certainly wrong.

In your own genealogy program, you might want to connect the two men and ignore the problems. But on Geni, we need to remember that thousands of users share this same line and have very different opinions.

To solve the problem, we made two Magogs. There is an Irish Magog and a Biblical Magog. You can follow the Irish kings all the way to the Irish Magog, then if you're interested, you can click the link to go to the Biblical Magog and follow him back to Adam.

I agree Remi, Geni will become a joke if legends or non accepted current standards for research are ignored. I have already been correcting articles on Wikepedia that are not correct, where one person just wants to make a connection with another without any linking documents or an over abundance of indirect evidence. Genealogy is a science, like history, which is a social science. History, unlike religion, is fluid as DNA and archaeology continue to rapidly expand and revise our understanding of the past. Stories common to a particular culture, but not supported by external sources (such as the tales surrounding King Arthur) are usually classified as cultural heritage or legends, because they do not support the "disinterested investigation" required of the discipline of history. Events occurring prior to written record are considered prehistory.

Well said Justin & Remi ;) Myths belongs to about me.. But I would keep The line, mark it as probably mythical, but cut where it is obviously wrong. I believe everyone is related. Maby back to "Adam" and "Eve" and I believe I am descendant of Harald Hairfair of Norway. But in a genealogical database, that also is public and shared.. I have to be able to prove The connection. If I wanted to share this connection I would publish in my HomePage or maby myheritage, but not in a shared database..

Why not start projects called "Legends" and "Prehistory of...." That would serve to inform those interested in these subjects to be able to research further and would be a place to post profiles that have been developed?

Does anyone think we can agree on what is a legend and what is truth? We can't even agree on how to decide. The only reason Jupiter/Zeus/Odin/Anything/et al. is not amongst living versions of God, is that they were forced from the collective consciousness by the attrition of other religions over centuries. I can't prove any god exists or does not, but I can know it, because it is proven to my satisfaction. Scientific satisfaction is someone else's version of proof. Agreeing that a set of rules creates a fact, only serves to alienate curiosity, and the only rules without exception are physical rules, but humankind does not even know those as well as we think we do.

Well.. If you want to make projects like that. Then they should never be connected to the big tree. There are already Disney and Tolkien projects, and they are of course fictional and has nothing to do with genealogy.

David, We have kept this line and many others. Certainly we want to do that because some people are interested in them.

Pamela, We have a Descents from Antiquity Project for exactly the purpose you describe. The project helps us look at these legendary descents and see what information actually exists.

http://www.geni.com/projects/Descents-from-Antiquity/12283

We also have a Fictional Genealogy Project to help identify specific profiles that belong to the realm of fiction rather than history.

http://www.geni.com/projects/Fictional-Genealogy/8908

I encourage everyone to follow these projects, and if you're interested, to become actively involved. There are many questionable lines on Geni, and quite a few of them should have public discussions before we cut the line.

Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I titled my first reply
Legend and Mythical vs. Factual,
as I was responding in general
and NOT directly to "the Magog" question,
but the question of beginning the practice of cutting out/ breaking off ALL legendary lineages, painstakingly constructed by individual Geni users.

I am all for, having two, separate profiles for the "false"
& the "true" Magog, should this be a hard cast, broadly researched and absolutely, impossible to accept/ allow said, "merge", as a reflected AND informed Act, as with any break.
.
Drolli, sweet!
& Pamela,
Good work and I can see your point. & Justin & Remi & all other participants,
Yes, accurate AND Verified is always best. Absolutely, agreed.
AND the Legend AND mythical Projects mentioned, are Great for just that.

I agree, Even with the Closest Path Dilemma caused by some of these "fictional" lines. (I have the Same Problem with a fifth ggrandfather's 2nd wife, as she has Closer ties, to many- a- relationship path, Geni has sought out for me. In turn, blocking my own path.)
As I've mentioned... I thought, this was about cutting innumerous branches- including Mohammed, Jesus of Nazareth, Adam and Eve and then, some.

*And there are some families, who claim the last two: in the Maxamillian and Washburn trees, though, tongue in cheek. ;-)

And the "bloodlines only" path option, seems like a good way to avoid the majority of these, at least, for the most part, for those who find it undesirable.
Best regards, Renée

)

I forgot to add... I mean, the legends and fictional projects mentioned here in this thread, are a great way to separate the fact from the fiction... and here say.
As well as, the bloodlines filter.
Peace, Renée

Theresa, there is a lot of disagreement. Naturally.

Some people think the fictional profiles should be disconnected from real lines, and even deleted from Geni.

I take a different approach. If we delete them, someone will just add them back in. I think it's better to have them out in the open where we can keep an eye on them.

Some people think that each relationship must be proven. I like to use a "best available evidence" standard. If the relationship is plausible, then leave it. When we have so many people working on the same lines, and descended from the same famous lines, there will always be people who think something is proven and other people who think it's not.

Hopefully, none of us will end up with too many fictional profiles in our ancestry, but if we do it's easy enough to look the other way. We're all able to decide for ourselves whether we really believe that that from Odin or Zeus.

Bravo! <3

I agree that its not a great idea to delete the profiles.
But I think its good to mark profiles (In the curator message) as
MP as far as the sources go, and then mark the last profile as the last known by primary sources. Where there are sources telling us that there is a proven line, then that should be used. When some lines are obvious fake or is not possible then a cut should be made. But I dont like to cut, just because we think that Snorre or other saga writers deceived us. A cut has to be followed by good arguments. I think that to make two different Magog profiles is the right thing to do, in this case the connection is impossible.

Hello all. I am involved with another similar discussion relating to the Fictional profiles, as opposed to mythical, in the sense that the only evidence that the people are connected is from literary works around King Arthur. Anyway, towards this discussion, I would be happy to see the connection between Adam & Eve, and God Almighty severed, in that he is the creator of them, but is not the physical "father" as such. Whatever your beliefs, whether or not Adam and Eve were the first human beings, if you can follow a parent to child genealogical path all the way back to them, then keep them. Many of the events documented in the book of Genesis would have occurred during the Sumarian period. Even with the Irish connection broken, Adam is currently my 122nd GGF, so I'm not sure where the breakdown is there. It's clearly short of 150 generations. That said, I have Lord Vishnu at about 135 generations. Óðinn / Woden / Woutan is my 38th great grandfather. Njord Vanir is my 53rd Great Grandfather. Fornjot, King of Kvenland is my 41st great grandfather. In terms of mythical beings who may, or may not have existed, there are more than a few. That said, many of these mythical beings were probably real people, who's legend has grown in the retelling. Woden of Asgard was most likely a real person, who lived in a city next to the Black Sea. He is believed to have been one of their greatest kings, who started many of their traditions, such as the funerary rights. He was treated as a revered ancestor for many generations, eventually was worshiped, and after many generations, displaced the previous king of the Norse gods, Tyr. While those in the north worshiped him as a god, those tribes who went to England (the angles, saxons, and britons, still remembered him as the revered ancestor, and have a place for him in their genealogical history. Achilles and Hercules are also considered gods, or half-gods, but the kings of ancient Greece traced their genealogy back to them, and their human fathers. They probably existed, but were just people who did great things, and were therefore treated as something greater in the memories of the people. But that's just my 2 cents.

Throwing out the baby-with-the-bath water …

Some suggest that Geni sever any line that cannot be "proven". But "proof" — like beauty — is ALWAYS in the eye of the beholder. There is no such thing as that which is completely proven beyond all doubt. "Standards of proof" could be applied, but such standards can themselves be challenged. Someone will challenge any asserted "proof" — and who is to say whether or not the challenge is plausible? Imagine the treasured genealogy that would be lost if it were discarded, when — in actuality — it contained at least some measure of irreplaceable history that could be found nowhere else and eventually could have become established by later scientific inquiry.

There are many instances in which a line of descent is widely accepted — except that the PRECISE IDENTITY of each member in the line is not established. Many kings lists are accepted history, but many are problematic — and it is unknown whether or not a list has "gaps" of missing monarchs, or that some list members perhaps do not belong, or perhaps a supposed father was actually a son or grandfather, etc. Yet the list itself is viewed as essentially valid.

Massive evidence exists certifying the identity of my paternal gg-grandfather — but conceivably this identity could still be wrong. Who would sever a connection to George Washington because he mythically chopped down a cherry tree — or to David Crockett because he mythically killed a bear at the age of three? There are inaccuracies in the accounts of EVERYONE — even me.

What is accepted truth is ALWAYS undergoing revision. Twenty years ago science was certain about the nature of virtually all the matter in the universe — but today the prevailing view is that the nature of roughly 95% of "stuff" in the universe is unknown (dark energy + dark matter). About one hundred years ago, Alfred Wegener proposed that the earth's crust is not secured but that continents "drift" around the globe. He was ridiculed and ostracized — and only a generation after his death was his theory accepted. The list of debunked or overturned "scientific facts" is very, very long.

Therefore, it is best to MAINTAIN ALL GENEALOGICAL TRADITIONS — and identify the more incredible as "controversial" or "unsupported by fact" or "legendary" or CHOOSE YOUR DESCRIPTOR.

The line is still there, just cut where it becomes problematic. You can still use hyperlinks to jump over to older line then follow it back.

@Justin Swanström - Scientists have sequenced the first ancient Irish genomes. Given the results of the recent DNA Evidence, especially the female, neolithic farmer dated at 5,200 years old - perhaps there is a middle eastern / biblical connection with Ireland.

Ancient DNA sheds light on Irish origins

By Paul Rincon
Science editor, BBC News website
December 25, 2015

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35179269

"DNA analysis of the Neolithic woman from Ballynahatty, near Belfast, reveals that she was most similar to modern people from Spain and Sardinia. But her ancestors ultimately came to Europe from the Middle East, where agriculture was invented."

Rhonda, every line in Europe goes back to the ancient Middle East so that's not a particularly persuasive argument ;)

Then too, DNA evidence of a general place of origin doesn't prove a long string of names. It's a complex problem.

I agree with the proposal of Justin Durand as far as I can see every one has time enough time to react and as far as I can see there was no good reason or another good contra proposal.

Even with DNA proof it is not possible to connect the Irish line to Adam & Eve. Because of the simple fact that from Adam & Eve no DNA is left.

I agree with Mr. Greer

this is mythology, it signifies the relationship with a fallen angel and first people Check Jewish sources

ISLANM suggests ADANM was the first prophet not man, otherwise who did his family marry.