Embedded Files
Mr. Lundahl’s Nonsensical Ordering of His Disjointed March 15 Essays and Why I labelled them as Lundahl (2022a) through Lundahl (2022g)
Kevin R. Henke
September 15, 2022
On March 15, 2022, Mr. Lundahl notified me that he had completed his response to Henke (2022a). Here is the list of his essays that he emailed me on March 15, 2022 at 5:51 AM, US Eastern Time:
Hans Georg Lundahl
Four Hypotheses of Kevin R. Henke for Historicity of Genesis 3
Several Types of "Supernatural" Featured in Stories Believed to be True
Two Arguments for Alexander that Atheists (and Likeminded) Should Not Use - Or Three
Real Confirmation : Too Late and Too Little Outside Greco-Roman Sphere
The Real Reason Why we Can and Could All the Time Say we Know Alexander's Carreer
Notice that the items on this list are not numbered 1-7. There is no Part 1, 2, 3, etc. in the titles. He does not list them as Lundahl (2022a), Lundahl (2022b), etc.
After downloading and reading the texts of these seven essays, I saw that they were terribly disorganized and incoherent, and that there was no consistent flow between them when they were placed in the top to bottom arrangement as shown in the above list sent by Mr. Lundahl. The replies in his seven essays mostly consisted of chopping up my paragraphs in Henke (2022a) and giving comments on the individual fragments (see Henke 2022d). So, rather than just going along with this nonsensical top to bottom arrangement, I arranged his essays on my website in an order that best served the arrangement of the topics in Henke (2022b). I then gave them the assignments Lundahl (2022a-g) for Henke (2022b) and my future essays.
After discussing in Section 1.0 of Henke (2022b) that Lundahl (2022a-g) had unacceptable referencing, unjustified misspellings and vague writing, it made sense to first introduce the topic of the supernatural in sections 2.0-3.0 of Henke (2022b). I first cited Mr. Lundahl’s essay entitled: “Several Types of ‘Supernatural’ Featured in Stories Believed to be True”, which I labelled Lundahl (2022a). Contrary to the approach of Mr. Lundahl, it makes more sense to define what the supernatural is before discussing his top essay “Four Hypotheses of Kevin R. Henke for Historicity of Genesis 3” and how the supernatural applies to the Talking Snake story in Genesis 3.
I then proceeded to label Mr. Lundahl’s essays b-g as I first cited them in Henke (2022b). This approach is not unusual in the peer-reviewed literature. For example, if individuals writing an article decide to cite chapters out of my arsenic book (Henke 2009), they might cite chapter 7 first in their document and call it Henke (2009a) and then cite chapter 3 later and call it Henke (2009b). For whatever reason, they may not want to cite the other chapters in the book. There’s no problem with any of this. Authors are entitled to only cite the references that they want and, most of all, in the order that they want. So, I have the right to cite any of Mr. Lundahl’s essays in whatever order I want and define them as Lundahl (2022a-p), accordingly. Mr. Lundahl does not understand any of this.
Once I had completed Henke (2022b) and delivered the essay to him, Mr. Lundahl sent me an email (May 16, 2022, 5:45 AM Eastern US time) with a link to his newest essay (Lundahl 2022h). He also got very upset over how I had ordered his essays and then insisted that I reorder them in his top to bottom fashion. Later, he sent additional emails demanding that I reorder his essays in Henke (2022b). He further complained in Lundahl (2022h). At this point, I was not going to go through and change hundreds of referencing letters in Henke (2022b) when the order that I gave them corresponds very well to the flow of the discussions in Henke (2022b) and when he failed to prominently indicate his ordering preference in the titles of his seven essays. This is yet another reason why Mr. Lundahl should have written just one essay instead of seven. Mr. Lundahl is responsible for the mess that he had created by writing seven disjointed essays instead of one well thought-out, coherent, well-referenced and spell-checked essay.
On closer inspection of Mr. Lundahl’s website, I discovered that there were number dates towards the bottom of his essays and in French at the top of his webpage (I don’t read French, so I didn’t initially notice them among his cluttered webpages). However, for Lundahl (2022d), the dates don’t even match. The French date towards the top says that Lundahl (2022d) was written on March 14, 2022, but the date towards the bottom of the essay below his full name, the city of Paris and St. Thomas Aquinas is “7.III.2022” or March 7, 2022. Also at the very beginning of Lundahl (2022d), Mr. Lundahl admits that the official publication date for at least this essay was March 15, 2022 (“15.III”). He states:
“I am going in advance of my plan, so, I am getting this published for 15.III, as the last day on which Henke asked for it, and signing it today, with today's saint, so you can see when it was really written.”
So, was Lundahl (2022d) really written on March 7 or 14, 2022? Why should anyone expect other people, especially non-Catholics, to know the day of the month by its saint? Nevertheless, as far as I am concerned, the seven essays were officially published all at once on March 15, 2022 at 5:51 AM US Eastern Time when he emailed them to me. The official publication date of March 15, 2022, and not earlier and possibly conflicting dates scattered on his cluttered website, is what is important. Again, if the ordering of this batch of seven essays was really important to Mr. Lundahl, he should have said so in the titles or just written one essay. By the time he complained on May 15, 2022, Henke (2022b) was finished and I was not going to rewrite my essay to comply with his poor organization and arbitrary demands. Nevertheless, I did place his eccentric dates with Roman numerals for the months in the links on my website: https://sites.google.com/site/respondingtocreationism/lundahl
Now, in a footnote labelled with a “*” at the bottom of his May 16, 2022 (6:40 AM US Eastern time) email, Mr. Lundahl badly rambles and tries to further justify the disordered arrangement of his seven essays:
“* The order of the first three : I begin with a consideration of your quadrilemma, and I then adress [sic, spelling] two points more fully than I did in it; the last four, I use three to eliminate insufficient arguments for the thesis that Alexander came from little Greece and conquered the big orient, in the last (of the four an overall), I give the adequate arguments, with real oldest textual confirmation in Maccabees, as added in the PPS.”
Now using my designations, Mr. Lundahl wanted to see the order as follows:
1. Lundahl (2022c)
2. Lundahl (2022b)
3. Lundahl (2022a)
4. Lundahl (2022f)
5. Lundahl (2022g)
6. Lundahl (2022d)
7. Lundahl (2022e)
Again, Mr. Lundahl’s ordering makes no sense. The “quadrilemma” refers to the four hypotheses about the origin of the Talking Snake discussed in Henke (2022a) and Lundahl (2022c). However, again, how can anyone properly evaluate the criticism of the supernatural in Hypotheses #3 and #4 unless they first know what we mean by the supernatural? This is why the discussions on the supernatural in Lundahl (2022a) and Lundahl (2022b) need to come before Lundahl (2022c). Also, Lundahl (2022a) introduces definitions of the supernatural and should come before Lundahl (2022b). Lundahl (2022d-g) mostly deal with issues related to the history and archeology of Alexander the Great. For Henke (2022b), my ordering works better than his. Mr. Lundahl’s tantrum is unjustified.
Reference
Henke, K.R. (ed.) 2009. Arsenic: Environmental Chemistry, Health Threats and Waste Treatment: John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, U.K., 569pp.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse