Henke 2022br

Lundahl (2022k) is Wrong. Mr. Lundahl Has the Burden of Evidence to Demonstrate that the Talking Snake of Genesis 3 Actually Existed

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022b), I stated that:

“In Lundahl (2022d), Lundahl (2022f), Lundahl (2022b), and in several of his emails, Mr. Lundahl makes a totally unwarranted assumption that if the earliest known audience believed that Genesis 3 or another claim in an ancient text was historically true, then the claims must be true. Of course, this assumption is nonsense for the following reasons:

1. People lie and make up stories.

2. People misinterpret natural events and sometimes credit them to supernatural forces (e.g., volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, severe storms, draught [sic, drought]).

3. The history of Mormonism, Scientology, etc. demonstrate that lies can become accepted by thousands or even millions of gullible people in a short amount of time, perhaps in no more than decades or a century.

4. Even if ancient historians (such as the five ancient biographers of Alexander the Great, Section 6.0) were sincere and honest, they still may have included inaccurate information, false rumors and misinterpretations in their works.

5. We don’t know who wrote Genesis 3 and when it was written.

6. The Dead Sea scrolls have the oldest known fragments of Genesis. This was about 1,000 years after Moses supposedly wrote the book. So, how could the writers of the Dead Sea scrolls have reliably known anything about events that occurred perhaps a thousand or more years earlier? How does Mr. Lundahl know that Genesis 3 is not a fabrication that may have been additionally altered or rewritten long before the Dead Sea scrolls? Why should anyone trust the claims in Genesis? Lundahl (2022c) assumes that God would have protected Genesis from corruption, but this assumption is totally without merit.

7. The biology of snakes is incompatible with them talking and there’s no evidence of either a supernatural or biological Talking Snake ever existing.

8. As further discussed in Section 5.0 [of Henke 2022b] and Henke (2022a), Hypotheses #3 and #4 on the origin of the Genesis 3 Talking Snake are rational, but Hypotheses #1 and #2 are not.

9. Mr. Lundahl has the burden of evidence to demonstrate that the claims in Genesis 3 and elsewhere in the Bible are factual.

Mr. Lundahl fails to realize that ancient histories by themselves cannot be trusted, especially if they were written centuries or millennia after the supposed event that they are describing or if the documents are copies of copies of copies of copies... and not the originals Even if an ancient history happens to be an original copy describing an event that occurred at the time that the document was written, unless a claim in an ancient history is confirmed with independent external evidence, either in another manuscript or from archeology, there’s no reason to accept it as reliable history. There’s a big difference between an historical claim and a reliable historical claim.” [my original emphasis in italics only; my current emphasis in bold]

Lundahl (2022k) then comments on point #9 from Henke (2022b) and totally fails to recognize that he has the burden of evidence to demonstrate that miracles are the more likely explanation for Genesis 3 than natural explanations:

“Before discussing factuality of any specific claim, I am establishing historicity of the genre, based on the principle of "earliest known audience."

Mr. Henke has here the burden of evidence to prove at least plausibility of either:

· changing the genre attribution from fictional entertainment to historic narrative

· or plausible misunderstanding or fraud behind a specific claim in spite of historic genre of the text.

And making or even plausibly arguing a claim that such and such a Biblical claim is impossible does not fulfil that onus probandi. While, if totally logically argued from totally good facts (won't happen, I'm confident), it would prove that for instance Genesis 3 must involve a non-fact, it doesn't show how it specifically could do so.” [my emphasis]

No! Again, I don’t ask for “proof” and I don’t give it! Proof is for mathematics as I said in Henke (2022a), Henke (2022b), Henke (2022ad). How many times do I have to say this before Mr. Lundahl finally understands it? I want to see Mr. Lundahl provide evidence that the Talking Snake is real. All of his lecturing on the historicity of the genre and the “earliest known audience” is a total waste of time. Both Mr. Lundahl and I agree that the ancient Israelites believed that Genesis 3 was history. However, I argue that their opinions were wrong. Whether it’s the ancient Israelites or modern individuals, there’s a big difference between believing that Genesis 3 is an historical event and being able to demonstrate through evidence that the event actually occurred.

Mr. Lundahl has the burden of evidence here and not me. Unlike the miracle-based Hypotheses #1 and #2 in Henke (2022a; 2022b), Hypotheses #3 and #4 are totally natural and reasonable explanations. I’ve already shown based on the laws of chemistry and physics and the fact that people commonly believe lies or misinterpret fiction that it’s far more probable that either Hypothesis #3 or #4 is the explanation for the Talking Snake story of Genesis 3 than either Hypothesis #2 or Mr. Lundahl’s preferred Hypothesis #1. Although miracles are always possible, in any given situation, it is far more probable that an event had a natural explanation than a supernatural one. As Lewis (1960, p. 162) correctly states when he summarizes the views of Hume:

“A miracle is therefore the most improbable of all events. It is always more probable that the witnesses were lying or mistaken than that a miracle occurred.”

That is, natural explanations are always the default position unless good evidence that a miracle actually occurred becomes available. So, Mr. Lundahl must produce some extraordinary evidence to demonstrate that miracles actually happened in Genesis 3 and that Hypothesis #1 is actually far more probable than either Hypothesis #3 or #4. Then and only then can Mr. Lundahl proclaim that Genesis 3 is history and that the Talking Snake actually existed. He has failed to do any of that and the natural explanations of Hypotheses #3 or #4 remain intact. Lundahl (2022k) is further claiming that the account in Genesis 3 is inerrant. He also has the burden of evidence to demonstrate that God actually exists, that he inspired Genesis 3 and that God not only made Genesis 3 historical, but also inerrant. So far, he’s utterly failed to achieve his lofty goals. Unless he can ever achieve these goals, Hypothesis #3 or #4 remain far more plausible and logical explanations.

Again, Mr. Lundahl and I already agree that the ancient Israelites actually believed that Genesis 3 was history. Both Hypotheses #3 and #4 even require that the ancient Israelites thought that Genesis 3 actually happened. For example, this is clearly stated in the definition of Hypothesis #3 that I gave in Henke (2022a):

“The Talking Snake of Genesis 3 was part of a made-up campfire story, a parable or based on a pagan myth that eventually was taken as fact by the ancient Israelites, like how President Reagan and his fans mistook fictional stories from World War 2 as real.” [my emphasis]

So, Mr. Lundahl is wasting his time on that issue. He needs to finally present his evidence that the ancient Israelites were right and that Genesis 3 is history and not a myth. His “earliest known audience” scam is not evidence that Genesis 3 is history because, as discussed in Henke (2022b; 2022bh), Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) and other archeological sources, history often shows that the beliefs of the “earliest known audience” were either improbable or just plain wrong.

Unlike his comments in Lundahl (2022k) on point #8 from Henke (2022b), at least in his above bullet point comments on point #9 in Lundahl (2022k), Mr. Lundahl properly distinguishes Hypothesis #3 (the first bullet) from Hypothesis #4 (the second bullet). Nevertheless, Mr. Lundahl still has not carefully read all of Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b). I NEVER said that any Biblical claim was “impossible.” I actually said that the historicity of Genesis 3 and other Biblical miracles were highly improbable. In particular, in Henke (2022b), I indicated that Genesis 3 ranked below 1 on my history probability scale, but that it was NOT zero. I’m asking for evidence so that I can move Genesis 3 from its current position below 1 on my history probability scale to far above 50.

Finally, Lundahl (2022k) continues to show off by throwing out Latin phrases that many of our readers might not know. According to The Oxford English Dictionary, “onus probandi” is a legal phrase that simply means “burden of proof.” Again, Mr. Lundahl needs to stop hiding behind Latin phrases and instead look for evidence and not proof!

References:

Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts: The Free Press: New York, USA, 385pp.

Lewis, C.S. 1960. Miracles, 2^nd ed., printed 1974: Harper One: HarperCollinsPublishers, 294pp.