Henke 2022ex

Lundahl (2022o) Fails to Understand the Need for Contemporary Archeological Evidence Even Though the Requirement is Mentioned Numerous Times in Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b)

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022b), I further discuss Hypothesis #2, which is one of four hypotheses that attempt to explain the origin of the Talking Snake of Genesis 3. I also respond to the unfavorable reactions to this hypothesis in Lundahl (2022c):

“Hypothesis #2 in Henke (2022a) again states:

“Moses saw Genesis 1-3 and perhaps most or even all of everything else in Genesis through visions given by God. There didn’t need to be a continuous human transmission of information from Adam to Moses. Visions from God would not be open to errors unlike written or oral transmissions from Adam to Moses.”

The visions from God would not necessarily be just visual. Advocates of Hypothesis #2 would argue that any vision could have had an audible component.

Hypothesis #2 is a potential explanation that some conservative Christians and Orthodox Jews might embrace instead of Hypothesis #1. Lundahl (2022c) does not like Hypothesis #2. Obviously, any extensive visions of Genesis in Hypothesis #2 sound too much like the lying visions given by Joseph Smith Jr. or the delusions of “prophets” like Kat Kerr, and Mr. Lundahl does not want Genesis to be based on false claims of visions like the Book of Mormon or the Candy Land in Heaven promoted by Kat Kerr (Knox 2021). Lundahl (2022c) even admits this when he denigrates Hypothesis #2 as a “parody” and “ideally suited for those not believing it.” In other words, he admits that Hypothesis #2 allows supporters of Hypotheses #3 and #4 to argue that Genesis is based on false claims of visions just like the Book of Mormon.

When refuting Hypothesis #2, Lundahl (2022c) assumes that Moses wrote Genesis as required by Hypothesis #1. Normally, quoting the Bible to defend the Bible would be blatant and fallacious circular reasoning. How can Mr. Lundahl demonstrate that a Talking Snake existed in Genesis 3 by invoking another unsubstantiated character; namely Moses? He’s attempting to use one unsupported story to justify another. However, because any supporter of Hypothesis #2 would agree with him that Moses wrote Genesis, Lundahl (2022c) can get away with using this fallacy to attack Hypothesis #2.” [my emphasis]

In response to the bolded section in the above quotation, Lundahl (2022o) first denies that he is committing circular reasoning fallacies when he quotes the Bible:

“No, it would not. Quoting one statement to defend that one statement would be a fallacy, but the Bible is not one statement.”

The Bible may not be just “one statement”, but when Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022a), Lundahl (2022b), Lundahl (2022c) and his other essays relies on the overall authority of the Bible as the “word of God” to justify quoting what the Bible says about God, angels, demons, a talking donkey, Jesus walking on water, Jesus’ Accension, Moses, Adam, etc., that is blatant circular reasoning (Henke 2022ab). Mr. Lundahl needs to have archeological or other external evidence to demonstrate that any claim in the Bible is reliable. He can’t just quote the Bible and expect people to take the verses at face value. Many conservative Christians even go as far as to quote 2 Timothy 3:16 to justify the inerrancy of the Old Testament; that is, “the Good Book is the Good Book because the Good Book says it’s the Good Book.” All of this is completely unjustified.

As I mentioned in Henke (2022a), the inscriptions in the Annuals of Sennacherib confirms King Sennacherib of Assyria’s successful attack on Judah during the reign of King Hezekiah as described in 2 Kings 18:13 (https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/10/04/king-hezekiah-an-archaeological-biography/). However, that does not mean that any individual should cite this evidence to justify the historicity of other verses in 2 Kings and certainly not in Genesis 3.

As I discussed in Henke (2022db), Mr. Lundahl initially brought up the topic of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in Lundahl (2022m). Lundahl (2022o) then continues his comments on the Gettysburg Address with this totally invalid analogy:

“To make it a bit clearer, if I pretended to be a Washington sceptic, and Henke replied that Lincoln believed in his historic existence "fourscore years and ten" before Ghettysburg, I'd be somewhat disingenious (except as continuing the spoof) to reply "but Lincoln is also a character and Ghettysburg also an event in that story book called 'US History' - you can't appeal from one made up character to another one!" [spell check needed!]

In each case, the appeal would be to one more recent than the one from which the appeal were made, and therefore closer to us and easier to check. And what is more, closer to the community in which we are.”

Now, Lundahl (2022o) commits a Strawman Fallacy by assuming that I would ever cite President Lincoln to demonstrate that George Washington existed. President Lincoln never personally knew George Washington. To demonstrate that George Washington existed, I would cite the letters and papers that George Washington himself wrote and only the people that knew and interacted with George Washington.

Obviously, Mr. Lundahl did not carefully read and understand what I wrote about Alexander the Great and various Bible characters in Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b). In these essays, I repeatedly stated that I was only interested in contemporary evidence to demonstrate that Alexander the Great and various Bible characters actually existed and not documents, paintings, sculptures and other artifacts made by individuals that lived long after they died or supposedly died. I’m not interested in hearsay, but only first-hand evidence. Here are just a few of the many statements that I made in Henke (2022a), where I made it perfectly clear that I only wanted contemporary evidence to support any claim about the past [my emphasis]:

“As I previously stated, I do not automatically reject secular histories that were written centuries after the described events. However, until I receive good external confirmation, I tend to be skeptical of a given claim in an ancient history, such as Arrian’s The Anabasis of Alexander. Similarly, I tend to be skeptical of the historical claims in the Bible and other religious works until I get external confirmation. For a given claim in these documents, I want to see external evidence that is contemporary with the event or in the lifetime of the individual, such as inscriptions or documents.”

“In the remote past of centuries or thousands of years ago, the quality and quantity of data become far less common. However, for kings and famous military leaders, there still may be inscriptions in temples and other buildings; contemporary statues, paintings, coins and mosaics; and other evidence that demonstrates that they existed or were present at a specific location.”

“Nevertheless, McDaniel (2019) made a good start and her essay is a valuable guide on where to start looking for contemporary evidence about the life of Alexander the Great.”

“Document C4 by itself indicates that it was written in Bactria during the 7^th year of the reign of “Alexandros” – a king with a Greek name. The paleography of C4 and associated documents confirms that they were written in the 4^th century BC. This is an excellent example of a contemporary document.”

“McDaniel (2019) mentions the Egyptian hieroglyph showing Alexander the Great addressing the god Min in the Luxor Temple in Egypt. According to McDaniel (2019), the inscription dates to about 332 BC. Additionally, Bosch-Puche (2013) and Bosch-Puche and Moje (2015) lists numerous examples of contemporary Egyptian inscriptions referring to Alexander the Great during his reign. Dates for the inscriptions are often included. For example, Bosch-Puche and Moje (2015) list the dates of the 22 inscriptions. One inscription has an uncertain range of dates from 332-323 BC. The other 21 inscriptions tend to have dates that are quite specific and range from about 331 BC to 12 April – 11 May 327 BC.”

In Henke (2022b), I further emphasized my desire for contemporary evidence:

“If Lundahl (2022c) and any other supporters of Hypotheses #1 or #2 want to cite genealogies from the Bible, they first have to demonstrate with external and contemporary evidence that these genealogies are authentic and not works of fiction like the ones in the Book of Mormon.” [italics emphasis in the original]

“Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022c), as well as in Lundahl (2022a) and Lundahl (2022b), also fails to recognize that any claim in the Bible or another document must be supported by external evidence from archeology or contemporary documents if it is to be accepted.” [bold and italics emphasis in original; my emphasis only in bold]

“In my earlier emails, Henke (2022a) and this essay, I argue that the history of Alexander the Great is far more reliable than Genesis 3, that contemporary archeology is needed to confirm the validity of ancient written histories, and that ancient historical accounts and contemporary archeology must work together to cautiously provide reliable history.” [my emphasis]

How many times do I have to stress that I want contemporary evidence for any claim about the past before Mr. Lundahl understands what I mean? After reading Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b), why would Lundahl (2022o) ever think that I would accept statements from Abraham Lincoln as good enough evidence for the existence of George Washington? Not only does he not understand how I view proper historical investigations, the statements in Lundahl (2022o) indicate that he has a poor understanding of what good standards are for evaluating history.

References:

Bosch-Puche, F. 2013. “The Egyptian Royal Titulary of Alexander the Great, I: Horus, Two Ladies, Golden Horus, and Throne Names”: Journal of Egyptian Archeology, v. 99, pp. 131-154.

Bosch-Puche, F. and J. Moje. 2015. “Alexander the Great’s Name in Contemporary Demotic Sources”: Journal of Egyptian Archeology, v. 101, pp. 340-348.

McDaniel, S. 2019. “What Evidence is There for the Existence of Alexander the Great? Quite a Lot.” https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/14/what-evidence-is-there-for-the-existence-of-alexander-the-great-quite-a-lot/ (last accessed February 27, 2022).