No Problems for Me
Kevin R. Henke
September 15, 2022
In Henke (2022b), I stated the following:
“As mentioned in Henke (2022a), Alexander the Great had numerous silver coins minted in his name during his lifetime. Lundahl (2022g) makes the following responses to Henke (2022a) and the coins:
“I would need to acknowledge that someone or something at the time of the coining referred to as Alexander existed.
That this entity disposed of a mint in Macedonia - and elsewhere in the budding Hellenistic world.”
While Lundahl (2022c) blindly accepts that Genesis 3 is history and without a shred of evidence believes the old story that Moses wrote it, Lundahl (2022g) thinks that the individual that ordered the minting of these coins and the humans that did it were only “someone or something.” How could a “something” order the minting of coins and then carry out that order? How could “someone or something at the time of the coining referred to as Alexander” afford to mint all of those coins, have the power to do it, and have so much influence that those coins would be widely used from India to Greece and Egypt if he wasn’t a powerful and wealthy leader? Again, all of the archeological evidence must be examined together – the Alexandros coins, the Egyptian temple inscriptions, the Bactrian documents, etc. – and not just the five ancient histories to confirm the existence of Alexander the Great. While I see no historical value whatsoever in Genesis 3, I do not dismiss these five ancient histories of Alexander the Great as worthless. They are very valuable when their individual claims are confirmed by archeological data. Once specific events in these histories are confirmed, then the information in the histories may carefully provide additional details and possibly answer questions raised by the archeological data. The written histories and the archeological data must complement each other – in isolation they are inadequate to truly provide the best information on who Alexander the Great really was.” [my emphasis in bold; original emphasis in bold and italics]
After reading this bolded section, Mr. Lundahl should have gone back and corrected the strawman fallacy that he had earlier created in Lundahl (2022p) (see Henke 2022fe). Instead, he makes the following comments:
“The problem is:
· who Alexander was, is only given in the texts
· and the texts are not contemporary and not independent but from within the Hellenistic cultural sphere, which looked back on Alexander as its founder, and this is the type of evidence we have for the Bible stories (when foundational).”
No. None of this is a problem in Henke (2022b). In this very bolded section of Henke (2022b) that Lundahl (2022p) supposedly responds to, I clearly stated that the five ancient texts are important. I am NOT ignoring them, but Mr. Lundahl needlessly ignores the importance of archeology because he doesn’t have a shred of archeological evidence to back up his Bible stories about Adam, Abraham and Moses. Thus, he tries to eliminate the importance of archeology in all historical investigations. Nevertheless, the Bactria documents by themselves specifically tell us that a king with the Greek name Alexander was ruling all the way into central Asia in the 4th century BC. The coins, his inscriptions in Egyptian temples and other archeological data identify his name and further testify to Alexander the Great’s existence and power in the 4th century BC. The five histories then provide additional information on who Alexander was.
Lundahl (2022p) is certainly correct that the texts from the five Roman historians are not contemporary and that is the exact reason why they cannot be trusted without archeological or other external conformation (Henke 2022a; Henke 2022b). Myths and distortions can develop very quickly and be taken as “history” by gullible people in “cultural spheres” that too often want to believe that their ancestors were special and that their gods were supreme. Again, without archeological or other external conformation, there is no reason to believe whatever a “cultural sphere” might say about its origin, no matter if it’s Israelite, Greek or Japanese (Henke 2022dn).