Lundahl (2022o) Still Fails to Realize that When Compared with post-1770 US and European History, the History of Ancient Israel is Incomplete and Full of Knowledge Gaps that Make It Unreliable
Kevin R. Henke
September 15, 2022
In Henke (2022b), I wrote the following in response to some comments in Lundahl (2022f):
“I didn’t bother in Henke (2022a) to discuss the origin of the Hellenistic Era and Alexander the Great’s contribution to it. Nevertheless, McDaniel (2019) deals with the topic and begins her discussions with the following statement:
“Finally, we have what is perhaps our greatest piece of evidence in favor of the existence of Alexander the Great: the Hellenistic Era (c. 323 – c. 31 BC).”
In response, Lundahl (2022f) gives the following rambling reply on the Hellenistic Era, which is incredibly bizarre and includes an absolutely baseless claim about nuclear wars before Noah’s Flood:
“McDaniel, 14.VI.2019 [Henke (2022a)]
The Hellenistic era shows it started with Alexander
Kevin R. Henke, 1.III.2022 [McDaniel (2019)]
no mention.
My reply
The Hellenistic era is a kind of cultural community (to which among others Apollonius of Rhodes belonged) and a community usually knows how it started.
Like New York knows - independently of old archives, which actually also are accessible as confirmation - that it began with Nieuw Amsterdam.
Exactly as "the Jewish Church" knows it started with God making a covenant with Moses, and that it later split into Jewish proper and Samaritan after the rule of King Solomon.
Exactly as the Catholic Church knows it started with Christ showing Himself to be God by the Resurrection and making a covenant with His chief disciples, Matthew 28, followed by the sending of the Holy Ghost, Acts 2.
Objection 1
Rome thought it was founded by Romulus, but wasn't.
Answer
Romulus doesn't need Mars for actual father to have existed, and apart from that, ditching the story in Livy is guesswork.
Objection 2
Athens and China pretend to have started with Kekrops and Fu Hsi who had human torso and arms and head, but below the torse the body of a large snake.
Answer
Probably they were both born in the time after the Flood when cosmic radiation was higher from above and radiation from pre-Flood nuke wars in the ground was higher too, and were born with legs not properly separated, and managed to move by wiggling around. This didn't stop them from becoming leaders, unlike what it would in these days of medical tyranny.
Objection 3
Mormons thought there were 5th C. AD Mormons on later COTUS territory.
Answer
Yes, but they are quite aware that they themselves as Latter Day continuators of a supposed Mormoni actually started by Joseph Smith.” [my emphasis]
The sources of the three “objections” mentioned by Lundahl (2022f) are unknown and are probably hypotheticals given by Mr. Lundahl. McDaniel (2019) says nothing about Romulus, Kekrops, or Fu Hsi.
Once more, Lundahl (2022f) makes a huge mistake of just assuming that whatever view an ancient community may have had about its origin, it must be reliable history. No. Such stories about the founding of various communities may be fairly accurate history or they may contain legends or consist entirely of myths without historical evidence. It’s the job of historians to separate history from fantasy. Although we have plenty of evidence about New Amsterdam proceeding New York City, there’s not a shred of evidence for the existence of Moses or the Exodus, Moroni’s ghost and his golden plates, or the events in Matthew 28 and Acts 2 (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Fitzgerald 2013; Loftus 2010; Loftus 2011). Rather than realizing that half-human and half-snake creatures are probably just made-up stories like the centaurs, Lundahl (2022f) thinks that they may have been humans with fused legs. While such a birth defect is certainly possible, his reasoning for this defect in Lundahl (2022f) is not. Without any evidence whatsoever, Lundahl (2022f) argues that nuclear wars before Noah’s Flood contributed to their conditions. Of course, Flood geology is bogus and there’s no evidence whatsoever in the Precambrian for a 4,400-to-6,000-year-old civilization with nuclear weapons (see my essays against Flood Geology here). If Mr. Lundahl has evidence for such a nuclear ancient civilization, I want to see it and I’m willing to change my mind. Until that evidence ever comes forward, Mr. Lundahl is totally failing to separate history from his fantasies about the nuclear pre-Flood civilizations. The speculations about pre-Flood nuclear wars in Lundahl (2022f) are so bizarre, outrageous and unfounded that I doubt that even the young-Earth creationists at Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis would take them seriously.”
In a response to this section, Lundahl (2022o) makes the following erroneous statements about history and the US (American) community:
“So, within the US American community, I can go to the community of the 19th C. as testifying to the community of the 18th C (Founding Fathers). And, back at section 5 now, similarily, within the series of Biblical communities (which show no obvious break like the ones between 5th C and 19th C Mormons!) I go to earliest known community mentioning Moses for evidence he is recalled as origin of Israelites - both Jew and Samaritan - and that puts Moses into the position of testifying to the generations Abraham to twelve sons of Jacob as origin of the Hebrews coming into Egypt, and given all of the time, from Abraham's vocation to Jacob blessing his sons, the Beduin tribe could transport writing material, this brings Abraham (and his 318 men!) into the position of having testified to this community of its more far-off origins, going back to the Flood (to which also a great deal of other communities testify) and via the Flood, to Adam. Precisely as within the Western community, I would refer to 19th C. reaction for the French Revolution, the late Ancien Régime for Henry IV, the time of Henry IV for those of St. Joan, that of St. Joan for that of St. Lewis IX, that of St. Lewis IX for King Robert, that of King Robert for that of King and Emperor Charlemagne, that of Charlemagne for Bl. Alcuin in Tours, Alcuin for St. Gregory of Tours, him for St Martin and also for Clovis, and then the time of Clovis for Constantine, or of Constantine for Caesar, or of Caesar to Antiochus IV and then him (and specifically his Hebrew and Biblical adversaries in Maccabees) for Alexander the Great himself. I know my method, and I apply it with constistency, this is not a failure to separate what should be separated, it is an ability of not separating things arbitrarily, just as that happens to be handed down on a plate by an expert.”
No! To find out about the 18th century American Founding Fathers, you directly evaluate the surviving evidence created by the Founding Fathers and not what 19th century Americans said about them. The approach is the same for French and Israelite history. History should be based on first-hand evidence and not hearsay!
As I explained earlier in Henke (2022dn) and as mentioned with the archeological evidence in Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) and other archeological sources, the claims about Israel in Genesis through at least Judges are unreliable and often contradict the evidence. While we have good and fairly complete US and French records since the 1770s, there’s a huge knowledge gap between when the Old Testament was written and our earliest records in the Dead Sea Scrolls. We simply cannot trust whatever any “community” might say about its origin unless we have continuous and reliable records and archeological evidence to support what the community is claiming. People frequently make up stories about their past and how special their ancestors were and how great their gods were. Although the archeological confirmation for Alexander the Great is good, other aspects of ancient European history are more questionable. When it comes to the Bible, Lundahl (2022o) has absolutely no justification for thinking that the Talking Snake, Adam, Abraham, the Flood, and Moses are historical. NONE. He needs to separate past events that have been confirmed with good evidence, archeology and an appropriate chain of custody from the Biblical claims that do not.
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.
Fitzgerald, D. 2013. The Complete Heretic’s Guide to Western Religion Book One: The Mormons, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 336 pp.
Loftus, J.W. (ed.). 2010. The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 422pp.
Loftus, J.W. (ed.). 2011. The End of Christianity, Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 435pp.
Martin, L.H. 1990. “The Encyclopedia Hellenistica and Christian Origins” Biblical Theology Bulletin, v. 20, pp. 123-127.
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).