The point about confusion is valid. A person could enter the OL studies just about barely knowing about Oera Linda book and the existence of small nation called Frisians. One can imagine the resulting initial confusion when words like Valhalla and Odenma are thrown into the mix. I can see how from beginner perspective it's way too much when the basics of what Frisians are, or are said to have been, is still a fresh topic. It's largely the same situation with other primary sources, typically present in non-English language and in presentation format difficult to share easily, as opposed to likes of Wiki essays and online documentaries about more stereotypical history tropes.
For advanced OL studies, comparisons to other sources are must. Finns are along with Celts and Phoenicians one of the three main "bad guys" peoples in OL narrative. A recurring beginner level question type that comes up again and again is if the Keltas are Celts, if the Gools are Galli and Gauls, if the Tro-wids are Druids, if the Magyars and Finns are Finns and so on. The answer is yes, yes, yes and one more time yes. Now the important thing: in some specific OL narrative details the
only other source saying the same or similar thing is Bock family saga (aka
SLS 1539 a in academic terms). These include:
- strict Magyar-Finn division ↔ strict Aser-Vaner division
- heavy Finnish association with Odin (Wodin) archetype ↔ heavy Finnish association with Odinism (Oden is Nordic variant spelling of Odin)
- OVIRSTE used to denote Finnish rank ↔ överste/eversti as Aser-Vaner system rank title
- reference to Finnish writing system ↔ Aser writing system
- reference to outrageous FINNA SÁGUM ↔ likes of Bock family saga
- Seven Islands and Walhallagara ↔ seven islands and Valhalla.
From advanced OL narrative research viewpoint one must thus see if the Bock family saga, collected over years down into archives by academics and laymen alike, is #1 a valid source or not (primary importance) and #2 historically correct or not (secondary importance). The exact same situation as with any other source, OL included.
The case that #1 it is valid source and #2 it is partially true is made
briefly here. I write "briefly" because the saga is alike to OL or Bible in its coverage of topics, themes and eras and thus the issue of validity for its contents can't be answered in simplistic yes/no manner in a forum dedicated mainly to another topic.
The main difference is not between Bock family saga and rest of the old sources, but instead between all the old primary sources and the modern day popular representations of what people in antiquity and medieval era knew, thought about or practised. The gap in shared understanding is not present in the first, but is heavily present in the latter. What goes into our history text books is not representative of what actual medieval Europeans or other peoples thought (e.g. Attila was
a Frisian prince, we lived on
a round ball planet). There exists multiple reasons to assume Bock family saga retains older or narrative-wise more uncorrupt versions of several Norse saga tropes – and those same Norse peoples
are included in OL narrative within the larger pan-Frisian or pan-Germanic nation (e.g. OL MS 047-048, 079). In practical terms a solution could be to keep future commentary laser focused on OL themes, making always very clear to what comes from the OL manuscript itself and what comes from another source.