Mr. Lundahl Needs to Avoid Old and Outdated References
Kevin R. Henke
October 3, 2022
In this debate, I have frequently criticized Mr. Lundahl for using outdated, unreliable and poor-quality references (e.g., Henke 2022g, Henke 2022s, Henke 2022ap, Henke 2022cj, Henke 2022ef). In Henke (2022at), I again criticize Mr. Lundahl’s reliance on inappropriate references:
“Why does he often avoid them and prefer less reliable sources, such as Wikipedia articles or outdated 18th to 19th century religious books, such as the opinions of 18th century Bishop Richard Challoner? He lives in Paris and certainly he should be able to find a University or other library with science journals. Why does he trust ancient histories, Wikipedia and other websites, but not modern archeology? Why does he trust C.S. Lewis? Why does he blindly trust Kent Hovind, who has no legitimate training in science? Why doesn’t he use Strahler (1999) or other science textbooks for legitimate information on science and the scientific method instead?” [my emphasis]
Starting with Henke (2022gq), I am responding to Mr. Lundahl’s comments on this paragraph. As usual, Lundahl (2022r) breaks up my paragraph into fragments and comments on some of the parts. In response to the bolded phrase, Lundahl (2022r) states:
“I fail to see how the opinion of Bishop Richard Challoner on how speech sounds came from donkeys (or by extension snakes) could be outdated. I also fail to see how someone like Henke, by pretending the Bible story is one of animals naturally having this ability (at least with snakes) could qualify as some kind of update on it. And I have so totally not seen in Henke's references any kind of even pretended update on Challoner's view. Theology is a field where the right solution has been given to most questions even nearly immediately 2000 years ago. This being so, a book is not likely to be outdated if from the 18th C. - unless it's by a modern sceptic. This group has changed their standpoint more than once, since they have so often been soundly refuted by updates even in secular research.”
As discussed in Henke 2022g, Bishop Challoner lived in the 18th century. His views of Numbers 22 and the rest of the Old Testament are definitely outdated. That was before biblical criticism concluded that the Pentateuch, including Numbers, was not written by one individual, namely Moses, but by multiple individuals (e.g., Finkelstein and Silberman 2001, pp. 10-14; Price 2017). This was also before modern archeology failed to confirm the Exodus and other events mentioned in the Old Testament, and instead obtained a more realistic view of what ancient Israel was really like (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001). As shown by the discussions in Tobin (2010), Finkelstein and Silberman (2001), Harris (2010, pp. 158-159), and Dennett (2006), the Bible and its theology are becoming more and more irrelevant every day as new discoveries are made in archeology, geology, physics, and biology. Science is not perfect, but enough definitive discoveries have been made to put an end to the idea that the Bible can be blindly trusted (Avalos 2011). Theology is worthless if it's not based on archeology, geology, physics and other good evidence.
As I stated in Henke (2022b), Bishop Challoner or anyone else can easily make up groundless excuses involving angels or demons:
“Without giving a proper reference, Lundahl (2022a) refers to a Bishop Challoner and states that angels are capable of making a donkey talk without violating natural law. Once more, Mr. Lundahl commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. Without having a shred of evidence, he invokes a groundless story about an angel to explain another groundless story about a talking donkey. He has done absolutely nothing to rationally convince us that any of these stories ever happened. He just expects us to accept that this account in Numbers was history because it’s in the Bible.”
As I further explained in Henke (2022fo), I strongly doubt that there were ever snakes and donkeys that could biologically talk. Josephus and probably a lot of other ancient Jews definitely believed that all of the animals in the Garden of Eden could biologically talk (Henke 2022dd). They didn’t believe in Challoner’s imaginary excuse that angels/demons were using animals as ventriloquist dummies. However, let me be clear to Mr. Lundahl, I think that Numbers 22 and Genesis 3 are just made-up stories (my Hypotheses #3 and #4 in Henke 2022a and Henke 2022b). I think that both Josephus and Bishop Challoner are wrong. They were taking Genesis 3 and Numbers 22 far too seriously instead of being properly skeptical.
References:
Avalos, H. 2011. “Why Biblical Studies Must End” in J.W. Loftus (ed.) The End of Christianity: Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, pp. 107-129.
Dennett, D.C. 2006. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon: Viking: Penguin Group: New York, 448pp.
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.
Harris, S. 2010. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Hunan Values: Free Press: New York, N.Y., USA, 291pp.
Price, R.M. 2017. Holy Fable: Volume I: The Old Testament Undistorted by Faith: Mindvendor Press, Coppell, TX, USA, 334pp
Tobin, P. 2010. “The Bible and Modern Scholarship” in J.W. Loftus (ed.) The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails: Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, pp. 148-180.