How about a little scholarly research?
* No record of such a sect
It's composed of manuscripts saved from the burning of Glastonbury.
* Glastonbury Monastary burned in 1184 (en.wikipedia.org...
). This says nothing of a truth, simply sets a timeframe.
what about books from Glastonbury library?
* There's no older legend about lost books from the library. Doing a google scholar search on Glastonbury manuscripts, I find that there are a lot
of them and they're used as reference for many historians.
* Searching for "list of Glastonbury Manuscripts" shows that there's a known list of manuscripts that date to about 1100, none of which has any of
McCanney says it's rumored that Nicola Tesla acquired knowledge from the book.
* Tesla was Catholic, not Church of England and CofE has some very harsh feelings about Catholics. Besides, he went to the US, not England. It is
very unlikely in that suspicious, nationalistic time that he got any secrets from anywhere.
The claim is made that "The word 'Kailedy' (or Kailedi) originated with the early Christians who came to Britain in 37AD".
* Jesus supposedly died in 33 AD. The sect during those times was trying to round up its base, firm the local churches, and organize (see Acts,
Corinthians, and all the other books in the Bible.)
The Kalidey' is supposedly a variant of "Culdee"
This is a word that does not show up until 803 AD: en.wikipedia.org...
Comments on the opening:
VERY modern in tone. They say that the translation was kept pure, but there are some concepts (they had little idea that fashions changed
dramatically) that seem to date from 1960-1980.
Comment on the first book
Again, very modern. There is talk of a creator god, then suddenly minor beings which are also deities/spirits (Earth, Sun, etc) -- which is NOT
Christian or Jewish in origin. Nor is it Egyptian or Sumerian. If this is supposed to be Biblical material (brought to Britain by new Christians in
37 AD), then it would clearly have links and beliefs traceable to the Judaism of the day (Christianity was not terribly different from Judaism in its
earliest days (remember, Jesus and the disciples were Jews.)) There is not a sense of an established mythos here and it is extremely contradictory
("god" decides to not interfere yet there he is being involved with the birth of Man. Earth is treated as human and then suddenly as a wild
The "birth of man" contains some material that would not have been acceptable to Jews or early Christians and names that were not found in any
mythos or legend. If the material had been ancient writings "from Jesus", etc, then we would see the same forms that are in the Gospels or the
Torah or other works of that time. None of them mentions "ape men" (an "ape man" is a fairly recent concept) It appears to be a mere "stream of
consciousness" rather than a retelling of a structured story passed from time immemorial, which deals with a firmly established belief system.
The name of "man" hops from "Earthling" to "Earthchild" (and within 2 sentences of each other) ... an inconsistency that would not have existed
in ancient manuscripts. Translators would have settled on one name for the being and would have kept it consistent throughout that section of the
Destruction and recreation section
I'm sorry to sound rather rude here, but it reads like a bad retelling of the "Cataclysm" introduction to the "World of Warcraft" MMORPG (which I
The Affliction of God
Linguistically, the same person who wrote/translated/created this is the same person who wrote the introduction and the previous section.
In the beginning
Same person, again. "Awen" is not a name in any language -- and this is important because the Jews/Greeks/Christians all had names by which they
referred to the deity.
...and so on and so forth.
So we have a disjointed, rambly narrative and words that have no consistent root language (even within the story) and an incoherent structure of
deities/powers/heavenly beings. If this was an ancient Christian narrative, we would expect to see elements of Christianity in it (the Torah/Old
Testament was not necessarily part of the Christian readings of the time.) We would expect to see names similar to or taken from the languages of the
Middle East of that time OR Celtic names.
In the old times, people KNEW what their names meant. Unlike today, they didn't use "pleasing sounds" but rather traditional names and names which
resounded with significance.
Cultural details -- well, they all seem to be Midwestern American with an overlayer of "sort of native American New Age". The mythology isn't
consistent in any of them, nor is it consistent with original Christian beliefs and thoughts.
In the narration we find that all the narrators write the same way no matter which culture they come from. If you run it through a linguistics
analyzer, all books have the same readability score in general and they all gender like a man wrote them.
Even if they had the same translator, books written in different languages flow differently (compare the flowery phrases of the Psalms with
Corinthians; two books composed in two different languages by two different cultures and meshed into a whole.) For something truly different and in
English, compare the translation of the Mahabdarata and the Bible or the Baha'i writings. You will see that even when translated into modern
English, the Baha'i is far more flowery... and in a very different way than ordinary English or the English version of the Bible and so forth.
So it cannot be any version of the Bible. It cannot be any writing brought over in 30 AD (otherwise we'd have linguistic ties with the languages and
cultures of the Jews of that day.)
I would judge from the consistent mess of theological ideas, disjointed writing style, and apparently made up words that this is a modern piece
created sometime after 1980. I frankly wouldn't buy a copy of it, having read it, nor do I intend to refer to it as a piece of unusual wisdom. As
fiction, well, I prefer the Warcraft novels.
More on Early Christianity: en.wikipedia.org...
More here: www.cogwriter.com...