Henke 2022cz

Unlike Mr. Lundahl, My Standards for History are Rational and Consistent

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022b), I state:

“Concerning my high standards for verifying the existence of a supernatural event or being, Lundahl (2022a) replies:

“Will you ‘lower it’ confronted with the fact that your ‘standard’ is not consistent with how we have historical knowledge?”

Of course not. Others might be willing to lower their standards for studying the past so that Mr. Lundahl can label likely fairy tales as “history”, but I won’t and neither should anyone else that studies past events. I will not lower my standards at all to comply with what he views as being “consistent” with historical knowledge, when he readily mixes angels, demons and other groundless claims with reality to explain both the past and present. Lundahl (2022a-g) is engaging in mythmaking and speculation, and not appropriate historical investigations. I am consistent in my very conservative interpretations of both human and geological history, and I see no evidence whatsoever to inject the supernatural into either of them.

Any literate individual can write and make up anything. This is exactly why Mormon apologists are so desperate to verify the Book of Mormon with archeology. They know very well that Joseph Smith Jr. or others could have made up the Book of Mormon. They recognize that they need external evidence to confirm that the Book of Mormon is history. Well, the same problem exists for Genesis and Exodus. It could have been made up by a “prophet” as I discuss in Section 5.0.”

Lundahl (2022m) makes the following flippant and baseless comment to the above bolded section from Henke (2022b):

“And the problem is, he has very little clue how human history is really conducted. He believes he is consistent, he is not.”

Or really? How many professional historians in peer-reviewed history journals invoke demons as possible explanations or argue for the existence of a Talking Snake as Mr. Lundahl does in Lundahl (2022a), Lundahl (2022c) and his other essays? I invite Mr. Lundahl to list some examples.

As discussed in Henke (2022b), I have consistently evaluated the evidence for Genesis 3 and Alexander the Great by the same standards. The evidence indicates that Alexander the Great lived. There’s no evidence whatsoever to support that Genesis 3 ever happened. Considering that people often lie or misinterpret events, and that large numbers of gullible people often believe false stories, the “first known audience” approach promoted in Lundahl (2022b), Lundahl (2022i) and his other essays is totally worthless in demonstrating that an ancient story actually happened. Also, as I stated in Henke (2022cy), my knowledge of the scientific method and my other extensive training allows me to demonstrate that Mr. Lundahl’s investigation methods and approach to history are seriously flawed and his arguments are often illogical. He’s far too willing to accept whatever ancient documents say and especially whatever the Bible says. He’s far too willing to consider the possibility of demonic activity before even demonstrating that demons actually exist. So, what are Mr. Lundahl’s qualifications on investigating the past? By what academic standards can Mr. Lundahl judge my qualifications?