Über Claesemanns Theorien mit Tradis in Hamburg

I

Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX

2/5/2022 at 1:59 PM

Ist Stefan Claesemann ein Gläubiger des Priorats Hl. Theresa von Avila, Hamburg?

Wenn nicht, dann warscheinlich Sedevacantist, auch Hamburg.

Wir theilen einen Einsatz für die Historizität der Bibel, aber sie sieht bei uns verschieden aus, ich denke der Seine ist aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht nur schlecht möglich, wärend meiner noch keine Widerlegung fand.

Aber, entscheiden Sie selbst, hier sind unsere Auseinandersetzungen:

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Somewhat Sectarian Style, Semel · Somewhat Sectarian Style, bis · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: No Answer from Dr. Liebi, So Far? · Stefan Claesemann tries to take it in private with me · Creation vs. Evolution : Let's Carbon Test Stefan Claesemann's Chronology [· Correcting the Test]*

Er behauptet zwar nicht, aber impliziert einen Aufstieg des C-14-Halts von 1,4 bis 100 pmC in höchstens 507 Jahren oder sogar noch nur 367, wenn es ihm ernst ist um Mentuhotep III als Pharao Abrahams, ich behaupte direct einen solchen Aufstieg in 1772 Jahren.

Er hat die Masoretisch-Vulgate Chronologie, Abraham geboren 292 nach der Sintflut, ich den kürzeren LXX (ohne 2. Kainan), Abraham geboren 942 nach der Flut.

Er identifiziert den reellen Alter Sesostris III mit dem C-14-Alter, und macht ihn zum Pharao Josephs, ich identifiziere erst den Fall Trojas C-14-Zeit mit reeller, and mache Sesostris III zum Pharao gestorben 1590 v. Chr. - um die Geburt Mosens.

Einzelkeiten dazu in dem letzten Theil obiger Serie.

Hans Georg Lundahl

* Fußnote

Correcting the Test wurde später zugefügt. Siehe nächsten Brief.

II

Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX

2/18/2022 at 2:35 PM

Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung

Ich entdeckte einen Rechenfehler in mein Let's Carbon Test Stefan Claesemann's Chronology - Von Sintflut an Joseph in Ägypten habe ich 292 + 215 Jahre Masoretische Chronologie gerechnet, es sollte aber sein 292 + 75 + 215.

Mit der Berichtigung nahm ich den Entschluß die mathematische Überprüfung zu wiederholen, mit der Berichtigung berücksichtigt. Hier : Correcting the Test

Auch wenn Stefan Claesemann nicht ein Gläubiger des Priorats hl. Theresa von Avila ist, finde ich, Sie sollten es auch mal lesen.

Daß ich ihn für entweder FSSPX oder Sedevacante halte, schließe ich von hier, seinen Worten:

I have become traditional catholic and get bloody eyes reading the 2004 Martyrologium as proving evidence for the by Paul prophecised fall away from faith by my church in the end times.

I love the Latin Mass and know that the old Martyrologium is partly very near to the unfalsified biblical dates.

Daß er in Hamburg wohnt steht auf sein FB-Profil.

Und die Ursache Ihres Schweigens, was soll ich daraus schließen?

Hans Georg Lundahl

III

P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich

2/23/2022 at 7:35 PM

Re: Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung

Sehr geehrter Hr. Lundahl,
Vielen Dank für Ihren Hinweis. Sie haben Recht, dass Sie nachfragen, warum ich Ihnen erst jetzt - auf Ihre bereits zweite Email - antworte. Ich bitte um Verzeihung, dass ich Sie so lange warten ließ.
Die Ursache, erst heute mein Schweigen zu brechen und Ihnen eine Antwort zu schreiben, resultiert aus der Größe der Gemeinde, die ich zurzeit betreue, und meiner weiteren Aufgaben in der Gemeinde an meinem Wohnort. Mein Schweigen war und ist kein Zeichen von Desinteresse an der Frage, sondern schlicht und ergreifend meine aktuell mich sehr in Anspruch nehmenden Aufgaben. Ich hoffe, Sie können mir noch einmal verzeihen.
Über ein persönliches Kennenlernen würde ich mich sehr freuen - falls Ihnen genehm.
In jedem Fall Ihnen alles Gute und Gottes Segen,
Ihr P. Roling

IV

Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX

2/24/2022 at 11:35 AM

Re: Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung

Herzlichen Dank!

Ich weiß nun mal nicht wo Stefan Claesemann wohnt, außer auf FB steht "Hamburg". Selbst lebe ich in Paris.

Ich hätte nichts gegen einen Briefewechsel, aber würde mich dabei vorbehalten gelegentlich bei einer Uneinigkeit (und auch bei Einighkeit wenn Ihnen genehm, aber da ist kein Vorbehalt in dem Fall) den Briefewechsel auf meinen Blog copiieren zu können.

http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/

Ich bin ehemahliger der FSSPX, immer noch einfacher Gläubiger, und will es bleiben, jetzt Anhänger an Pabst Michael (auch ehem. der FSSPX).

Was wollen Sie näher wissen?

Hans Georg Lundahl

V

P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich

2/24/2022 at 2:34 PM

Re: Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung

Sehr geehrter Hr. Lundahl,

Vielleicht können Sie Hr. Clasemann über FB direkt fragen, wo er zur Kirche geht? Wäre zumindest eine Idee...

Ich muss Ihnen auch gestehen - das habe ich dann in der Email doch noch vergessen, klar zu sagen - dass ich seinen und Ihren Text noch nicht gelesen habe, sodass ich gar nicht in der Lage bin, in dieser Sache Fragen stellen zu können. Sobald ich mich näher damit befasst haben werde und noch Fragen offen sind, würde ich mich dann wieder bei Ihnen melden. Bis dahin bitte ich Sie, keine Emails oder Briefe von mir zu veröffentlichen. Vielen Dank.

Alles Gute und Gottes Segen,

Ihr P. Roling

VI

Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX

3/1/2022 at 11:31 AM

Re: Ist Stefan Claesemann etc. Fortsetzung

Ist Laetare-Sonntag eine gute Frist?

P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich

Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX

P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich

Ich an P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX

P. Matthias Rohling, FSSPX an mich

With Hugh Owen, Mainly on Improving Catholic Creation Research, but Also on My Situation

I

HGL to Hugh Owen

12/27/2021 at 5:57 PM

Kennedy Report

I am watching Forrest Valkai trying to debunk a section of The Kennedy Report. Here is were I stopped Forrest Valkai's video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJnhRQjPD9U&t=1106s

Random mutations do not all look like what he saw on the orphanage.

a) Some mutations, while indeed losses of information, are nevertheless beneficial. FV could very easily give the example of lactase persistence, eye colour, skin colour, speed for accumulating fat and muscle ...
b) What he saw would normally have been not locus mutations, but "chromosome mutations" - things that change the karyotype, one of the best known examples of which is Downs, three chromosomes 21 instead of 2. And chromosome mutations are indeed handicap, cancer, death before birth (three examples of the latter : trisomy 1, trisomy 3, tetraploidy all over the karyotype - mortal unless mosaical, or chimeral). However, the guy from The Kennedy Report seemingly has no idea how this could be exploited in the question of rising number of chromosomes, among mammals, which is one of the implications of evolution.

To me it seems, the Catholic creationist movement is - as far as the human reason aspect is concerned - a joke. It's like picking Ray Comfort over Jonathan Sarfati - or the preachy over the exact.

I am not saying that the points in the video by the Kennedy report are in and of themselves bad, but the guy seems unable to properly defend them. They can perhaps not be disproven by good analysis, but they are easy to debunk by nitpicking and the guy is not ready to nitpick back or even better forestall nitpicking by actually giving a not just coherent, but also detailed and informed reason for his points.

Meanwhile, there is a Catholic creationist apologist whom you are boycotting. Me.

You will excuse me for not wishing you a blessed Christmastide, you knew me years ago, and your boycott has blighted part of mine, through the poverty I'm going through.

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Hugh Owen to HGL

12/27/2021 at 7:37 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

Dear Hans,

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

Thank you for getting in touch.

Kennedy Hall does not represent the Kolbe Center, so we cannot take responsibility for any weaknesses in his presentation. On the other hand, it sounds as if some of the main points he made are correct, even if he was not able to defend them against "nit-picking." I have not seen his video so I do not know. For example, to show that there are "beneficial" mutations does not disprove the truth of the claim that there are no examples of mutations that add new functional information to the genome of any plant, animal or human. If that claim is true--and it is--then all the nit-picking in the world cannot save biological evolution from bankruptcy.

In short, your statement that "the Catholic creationist movement is - as far as the human reason aspect is concerned - a joke," is unjust, since the materials on our website and the content of our DVD series have held up very well under criticism. For examples, please see the "Replies to Critics" section of our website, especially the Trialogue with the two Dominican priests, to see that our team defends the traditional teaching of the Church on creation much better than the Catholic defenders of progressive creation or theistic evolution, from the perspective of theology, philosophy and natural science.

Through the prayers of the Mother of God, may the Holy Ghost lead us all into all the Truth and may we all be saved souls together in Heaven!

In Domino,

Hugh Owen

III

HGL to Hugh Owen

12/28/2021 at 10:50 AM

Re: Kennedy Report

A few replies:

"For example, to show that there are "beneficial" mutations does not disprove the truth of the claim that there are no examples of mutations that add new functional information to the genome of any plant, animal or human."

Very true. But unfortunately not what Kennedy was saying.

Some people have tried to figure out how mutations could do that. Jacques Monod in the early 70's conceded that one mutation would not bring about a new functional gene. But he was optimistic, it could happen if an offspring inherited a mutation from father and one from mother. I have pointed out that this cannot happen, since the mutations will be on two different chromosomes, therefore two different and non-combining versions of the old gene. I am reminded of how Rev. Houghton mentioned that the mention of chromosomes was banned from French science for c. 50 years, because they understood how it undermined evolution - something which I also used in context with chromosome numbers being different.

I decided to make two thought experiments on it and here these are:

What Could Irregular Deletions Do? · What About Pseudo-Genes Starting to Code?

"If that claim is true--and it is--then all the nit-picking in the world cannot save biological evolution from bankruptcy."

There is bankrupcy and bankrupcy. In the final three and a half years before Harmageddon, two men will be soundly bankrupt intellectually, but they won't quite be so mediatically - you know the two who get thrown alive into a lake of fire. I want a Catholic Creationist movement that is able to show itself able to nitpick and therefore bankrupt any nitpicker like Forrest Valkai. Here is how I come up against him, btw:

Watch Forrest Valkai on his Video from 17:00 to 18:00 · Debate with Shane Wilson and ReiperX

and Forrest Valkai to the Rescue of Radiometric Dating (Or Not?) · L M and Comparative Religion to the Rescue of Forrest Valkai? · subductionzone to the rescue of Forrest Valkai? Or Keith Levkoff? Deus-Stein? · How Carbon Dating is Done, Why My Calibration is Possible

"For examples, please see the "Replies to Critics" section of our website, especially the Trialogue with the two Dominican priests"

Ah, I found "answer to second question" on it ... I sent one of the two an answer on "fittingness of evolution". Do you have any similar with secularists? I have, not due to them agreeing in advance, but due to my hijacking our dialogues onto my blogs (like the one linked to).

"In short, your statement that "the Catholic creationist movement is - as far as the human reason aspect is concerned - a joke," is unjust,"

I must admit I have omitted looking at your work, since you decided to overlook mine on carbon dates, when you defended a Vulgate-Ussher timeline instead of a timeline with Roman martyrology for December 25th, which is what I use. It should therefore be taken, as perhaps excepting not just me, but also you.

Still, I think you could improve if you took a bit of my materials too.

That said, in a more charitable mood, this time: Merry Christmas!

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Hugh Owen to HGL

12/28/2021 at 5:09 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

Dear Hans,

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

First things first: How is your mother doing? I have been keeping her in my prayers.

Thank you for your replies.

Please forgive me for not getting back to you about your work on C-14 dating. If I could trouble you to send it to me again, I will ask the member of our team who is in charge of that project to look at it carefully.

After we have looked at your work on C-14 dating, we can take up the pros and cons of the chronology derived from the Septuagint vs. the one derived from the numbers in the Hebrew text of the Bible that St. Jerome used in the Vulgate.

I am going to recommend to Kennedy Hall that he ask one of our leadership team members who has expertise in biology to do an interview with him and answer the critics. Hopefully, he will do so.

In Domino,

Hugh Owen

V

HGL to Hugh Owen

12/28/2021 at 6:09 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

She was sending me a letter a few weeks ago, and I haven't received it.

Material on C-14, perhaps not identic to previous: Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods

LXX / Roman martyrology vs later Hebrew texts (Vulgate, Masoretic), see my answer to CMI : Resp. to Carter / Cosner : In the Lifetime of Josephus
As well as my background story for Roman martyrology of December 25th, credits to my friend Stephan Borgehammar, a Church historian : Background to Christmas Martyrology · What Martyrology, by the way?

So, St. Jerome is equally responsible for the chronology of the martyrology (LXX without second Cainan) and for the Latin text with another chronology.

Your recommendations to Kennedy Hall are very appreciated.

Chromosome numbers, first published on Communities dot com · · · Undisputed facts · Hypothesis I · Hypothesis II · Hypothesis III · Hypothesis IV · Overall criticism

Update on Chromosome numbers · · · Talkorigins explains on human-chimp situation · my footnotes on this post · a little excursus on French language history

Speciation observed - but not in mammals · · · a wannna-read

Non-replies · · · comments part on non-replies, mostly links about chromosomal polymorphism

Chromosome numbers - the summing up · · · Kent Hovind's list of chromosome numbers of different species, plus one other link Comments part

Updated : Was I wrong on Karyograms?
Other : Microbes to Man - Happening Before Our Eyes?

Would that be some help?

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI

HGL to Hugh Owen

12/28/2021 at 7:04 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

Dear Hans,

Pax Christi!

That is a very rich collection of information!

We will try to be systematic and work our way through the various articles.

We will begin with the articles on C-14 which I will forward to our main expert in that area.

Please be patient with us, but we will get back to you this time!

In Domino,

Hugh Owen

VII

Hugh Owen to HGL

12/28/2021 at 7:08 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

Dear Hans,

Pax Christi!

When we try to open the files on C-14, Webroot tells us that the site is dangerous. Have you had any problems with site security?

Can you suggest another way to access the C-14 material?

In Domino,

Hugh Owen

VIII

HGL to Hugh Owen

12/29/2021 at 6:36 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

No, I can't suggest any other way to access it.

Try to go to a cyber, ignore webroot and try there.

Either way, get used to such things abusively warning for sites that are NOT dangerous.

I have had the cyber site of a city near Paris block all of blogspot.com because it contains the letter sequence blogs pot .com and in French "pot" is not often used for flower pot or chamber pot, it's just slang for "weed".

Hans Georg Lundahl

IX

Hugh Owen to HGL

12/29/2021 at 11:22 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

Dear Hans,

Pax Christi!

I have asked my webmaster to help me access the content of your website safely.

I am sure that he will be able to do so.

In Domino,

Hugh

X

HGL to Hugh Owen

12/30/2021 at 12:43 PM

Re: Kennedy Report

Thank you in advance!

You might be saving me a lot of trouble, if you get to it soon./HGL

XI

HGL to Hugh Owen

1/7/2022 at 3:10 PM

Hello, have the IT specialists resolved the problem, yet?

I should have been hearing some from you or the carbon experts, I feel?

If they are confused about sth, it could be the thing I deal with here:

My C14 Calibration, Has it Any Stability? · 670 Actual Years = 32 000 or 4000 Carbon Years? Both.

XII

HGL to Hugh Owen

1/7/2022 at 3:44 PM

webroot

look at this form:

https://www.brightcloud.com/tools/change-request.php

I found it on the site of webroot.

Someone manually would have put my blog URL on a "dangerous" category./HGL

XIII

Hugh Owen to HGL

1/7/2022 at 6:34 PM

Re: webroot

Dear Brother Hans,

Pax Christi!

I finally had to have our webmaster send me the files. I then forwarded them to our expert in C-14 dating. He has a lot of irons in the fire, so please be patient. We will get back to you as soon as we can.

Your Mom is in my prayers. Are you able to visit her?

In Domino,

Hugh Owen

XIV

HGL to Hugh Owen

1/7/2022 at 7:20 PM

Re: webroot

My mom is in Malmö. I am in Paris. 1249 km.

Travelling is restricted with mask and perhaps now even pass mandates.

I don't have a friend with a car who's willing to go, as far as I know./HGL

Kevin R. Henke's Essay: Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3: History?

Kevin R. Henke		Hans Georg Lundahl
Kevin R. Henke's Essay: Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3: History?
		Four Hypotheses of Kevin R. Henke for Historicity of Genesis 3
		On Verifying the Supernatural
		Several Types of "Supernatural" Featured in Stories Believed to be True
		Two Arguments for Alexander that Atheists (and Likeminded) Should Not Use - Or Three
		Undecisives
		Real Confirmation : Too Late and Too Little Outside Greco-Roman Sphere
		The Real Reason Why we Can and Could All the Time Say we Know Alexander's Carreer

Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3: History?
Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D. March 1, 2022

BACKGROUND

My Standards on Evaluating History: Both Human and Natural

I recognize that past events really can’t be proven. Proof is more in the realm of mathematics rather than history or science. Nevertheless, I tend to rank claims about historical events as: 1) highly probable or beyond a reasonable doubt, 2) probable, 3) plausible, 4) unlikely or 5) highly unlikely (probably false or myth). My level of skepticism of events and individuals varies and would be classified in the categories of plausible, unlikely or highly unlikely. In these situations, I tend to ask myself: which is more probable that the event actually occurred or that someone just made it up?

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. Depending on the circumstances, I might carefully give some credence to evidence from artifacts from a few decades after the event or the death of individual. For example, if an artist or writer knew the subject of his work and did a painting or sculpture within a few decades of the subject’s death that might be acceptable enough evidence.

Of course, a document, inscription or other written record must be accurately dated to ensure that it was written at the time of the event or when the subject lived. This is usually not easy. The verb tense or other indications in the text may indicate that it’s an official record that was written at or during the time of the event or the reign of a king. Paleography is usually not very accurate and requires other well-dated written documents as standards. With standards that have fixed dates, paleography can restrict the date of a document to within a century or perhaps a few decades (e.g., Orsini and Clarysse 2012 – New Testament paleography). Radiocarbon dating is a destructive process and often does not give precise enough results for historians anyway.

External evidence will vary with the century, culture and technology. In the past 200-300 years, potentially suitable external evidence to confirm the existence of an individual or an event could include tombstones, contemporary paintings and photographs, other artifacts and a variety of contemporary and official public documents, such as census records, birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, tax records, real estate transactions, wills, etc. Because of the possibility that some of these records could be forged, multiple public records should be available to verify the existence of an individual or event. I fully recognize that these types of public records are either totally or nearly absent in ancient history, but multiple examples of these types of records are valuable for verifying the existence of an individual and his/her migrations in the US from the 17th to 21st centuries. As I stated earlier, family records (trees) and DNA evidence are also important in confirming these records.

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.

If multiple claims in an ancient document, such as Anabasis of Alexander or 2 Kings in the Bible, have been reasonably verified by external evidence, then my skepticism of the document is reduced and I’m more likely to think that other claims in these documents are plausible. For example, 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/). Although this does not mean that I should automatically trust everything in 2 Kings, it does indicate that I would take other claims in 2 Kings more seriously. I could then look for additional evidence that either collaborates or fails to support other statements in 2 Kings. Thus, for an unsupported claim in Anabasis of Alexander or 2 Kings, I would still want additional external evidence before I would be willing to elevate my classification of the claim from plausible to probable or even beyond a reasonable doubt.

While one individual, Arrian, may have written The Anabasis of Alexander over a short period of time, the Bible was written by numerous authors over a much longer period of time. So, just because archeologists have discovered inscriptions that confirm the existence of Hezekiah and other kings mentioned in 2 Kings that does not mean that events and people mentioned in Exodus and Genesis can be trusted.

In geology, we are more fortunate than most archeologists and historians. If there are controversies about a basalt in an outcrop and as long as it’s not on the Moon, North Korea or some other inaccessible location, we can usually gather more samples, look at the rocks below and above and laterally from the basalt, run more tests, and perhaps answer the questions. Unless new discoveries are made, historians and archeologists are often stuck with what they’ve got.

I fully recognize that my standards for accepting claims about natural or human history are probably too stringent for the official procedures used by archeologists, historians and definitely for apologists of the Bible. But that’s too bad for them and I’m not going to lower my standards to appease their religious, political and academic agendas. My standards are high and based on the scientific method and those used by geologists. My standards work for natural history and I see no reason to lower them for human history. Yes, my approach is very conservative and would lead to more false negatives than other approaches; that is, I would have the tendency to be more skeptical of a lot of historical claims that historians, Christian apologists or archeologists would accept as “fact.” However, I think that this is the right approach to avoid accepting bad claims as “history.” I also recognize that very little human history will ever reach my standard of confidence, but I think quality evidence is better than quantity of claims. Most human history is never recorded anyway.

The Supernatural

I define a supernatural act or “magic” as a feat that violates the laws of chemistry and/or physics. Such a supernatural feat could also be called a miracle. For our everyday macroscopic world, the laws of physics would include Newtonian physics for the most part rather than Einsteinian Relativity. The laws of Chemistry are based on atomic theory. Obviously, as our knowledge of chemistry and physics grows, my views of what is supernatural, artificial and natural might change. However, even with the advent of Einsteinian physics, Newton’s laws still widely apply in our Universe.

I would define a supernatural being as an individual or thing that is capable of performing supernatural acts or has bodily structures that are inconsistent with biology. Examples would include gods, angels, the Talking Snake, fire-breathing dragons, and trees that produce fruit that can increase lifespans and mental abilities with one bite. Also, if a “prophet of God” actually and demonstrably turns lead into gold in violation of the laws of chemistry or levitates against the law of gravity, I would accept that as evidence of the supernatural, and I would have to recognize that this individual has real supernatural abilities. Unlike other secularists, I’m unlikely to move the goal posts to redefine a truly verified miracle, if it ever occurs, as part of a new still totally naturalistic worldview. So, from what we know about the intelligence and the inability of snakes and other reptiles to speak, if a snake starts having a conversation with me and other witnesses, I would have to change my skeptical views of Genesis 3. We also don’t expect the fruit of trees to immediately and substantially increase the mental abilities and lifespans of humans beings with just one bite. If science verifies that such trees exist, I would again have to reduce or even eliminate my skepticism of Genesis 3. Until I actually have definitive evidence of the supernatural, I will not say that miracles are impossible. However, I will automatically classify any supernatural claim as highly unlikely; this would include the Talking Snake of Genesis, as well as the claim that Romulus was born of a virgin. Again, I’m not saying that miracles and supernatural beings are impossible, but I’m saying that they’re highly unlikely until we get good evidence for them. I have yet to see any definitive evidence of any supernatural event or being, but I’m open-minded as long as my standards are met. I will not lower my standards for any religious, political or other agenda. I fully recognize that this is very difficult for my opponents to meet. However, that’s too bad for them. I won’t lower my standards to help them. They must find some way of meeting my standards if they want me to accept their claims. If they meet my standards, I will change my mind and admit that I’m wrong. Again, these are my standards and I don’t speak for other secularists.

In addition, there are claims of natural and not necessarily supernatural creatures where the evidence of their existence is either inadequate or nonexistent, such as Bigfoot, Nessie or the Cyclops. Claims for their existence are either based on personal testimony or ancient written records, which, so far, have been untrustworthy. Although their existence is naturally possible, we currently have no physical evidence of their existence. The presentation of a living example or a dead body that can be examined for authenticity, such as a Bigfoot, would be enough to demonstrate that they exist.

My Agnosticism

Although I don’t believe in Zeus, Thor and other specific gods, I am an agnostic about generic God(s). Although I don’t find the evidence totally convincing, I see some evidence in Intelligent Design arguments, which may indicate that one or more Gods could have created the Universe and possibly life on Earth. If these God(s) exist, I suspect that they are totally or largely Deistic. In other words, if they exist, they are probably impersonal. I see no evidence for answered prayers or an afterlife. However, if someone actually demonstrates that prayer can raise the dead or restore a severed limb, then I must recognize that one or more personal Divine Beings exist.

My willingness to consider the possibility of God(s) creating the Universe or life is not a god-of-the gaps (i.e., God did it!) fallacy because I’m only saying that it’s a possibility and not definite. Nevertheless, I see the origin and geological history of the Earth as being totally explained by natural processes without the need for supernatural intervention.

I am also a “weak” and not a “strong” agnostic. That is, I only speak for myself. I recognize that others may have had a definite vision or personal encounter with God or gods. I don’t know if their personal experiences with God or gods are real. I suspect that Kat Kerr is delusional or lying when she says that she has seen Jesus’ Candyland in Heaven.

As for the existence of other supernatural beings, such as fairies, a Talking Snake, Tiamat, witches with supernatural powers, sirens, fairies, ghosts, angels, and other magical creatures my doubts are even stronger. I see absolutely no evidence for them. Until a claim about them actually has some evidence, I won’t accept their existence. However, if someone eventually comes forward with evidence for demons, Talking Snakes, fairies, witches, and other supernatural beings, I’ll simply change my mind and admit that I’m wrong. Until at least some evidence that can be totally verified under strict scientific conditions, I will not accept their existence. Eyewitness testimonies under uncontrolled conditions are not good enough evidence for me. I totally recognize that this could mean that I end up rejecting valid claims for the existence of a supernatural event or being, but that’s not my problem. It’s the problem of those that advocate for their existence. I also fully recognize that believers in the supernatural will find my standards essentially impossible to meet or, as you have said, no one can locate and excavate the Garden of Eden. However, that’s your problem. You have the burden of evidence for claiming that supernatural beings exist and that supernatural events occur or have occurred. You will need to somehow produce evidence for a Talking Snake. Even if it’s essentially impossible for you to do so, I will not lower my standards.

INVESTIGATION OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

My Proposal on Alexander the Great

My proposal or hypothesis for testing the existence of Alexander the Great is very conservative. I simply propose that Alexander the Great was:

1. a human being that lived in the 4^th century BC and not a mythical or fictional being.

2. he was a military leader that had an extraordinary political effect over a wide region of at least the Middle East.

Again, I don’t expect to “prove” these statements, but only show that they are either probable or beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, as a scientist, I don’t claim ultimate proof. However, some claims are so well verified that I would identify them as demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. If these two claims are demonstrated to be probable or even beyond a reasonable doubt, then I could look at other claims made about Alexander in the works of Arrian, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch, etc. and possibly test them with external evidence. I also fully recognize that my very conservative and cautious approach will at least initially overlook many of his detailed accomplishments and underestimate Alexander the Great’s influence in his society. But, I want to be slow and cautious.

McDaniel (2019)

McDaniel (2019) at https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/14/what-evidence-is-there-for-the-existence-of-alexander-the-great-quite-a-lot/ is a response to archskeptics that claim that Alexander the Great never existed at all. She presents some relevant evidence that Alexander the Great was an actual military leader and king, which is exactly what I want to demonstrate. If her claims actually had been thorough and totally reliable and if she had properly referenced her claims with peer-reviewed science journals, I could have just linked to her essay and declared that archeology effectively supplements the Roman histories and demonstrates my proposal to be probable or even beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, no one is perfect and I have found a number of errors and inadequacies in her article. First of all, it’s poorly referenced. Wikipedia links aren’t good enough. We don’t know if she got her statements from reliable sources or not. Thus, her claims need to be verified with other sources and even if she had referenced her claims, I would still have needed to check those references to make sure that she properly cited them. Furthermore, it’s possible that other researchers have proposed opposing and alternative explanations to her claims. Secondly, when I checked her claims, I found that she had made some errors. Now, I fully recognize, as she stated in her essay, that she could not discuss all of the evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great in a brief article. Yet, I found some important details about the artifacts and the life of Alexander the Great that she did not discuss, which I think deserve mentioning. Although I don’t see any need to comment on some of her claims, there are cases where I will further discuss the issues that she raises, correct her errors when I can, and present additional relevant information that she did not mention. 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.

Ancient Histories

McDaniel (2019) lists five ancient historians that produced works that discuss Alexander the Great, which are (various spellings): Diodorous Siculus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Arrianos (Arrian), Plutarch, and Justin’s work based on an earlier work by Trogus. In her opinion, the works by Arrianos and Diodoros are most reliable. If it could be shown that these historians were independent of each other and if they had reliable sources, then we would have reason to place greater confidence in their claims even without any external evidence. Furthermore, if one author writes a positive biography on a leader and another writes a negative one, we might have more confidence if they both agree that the leader was involved in a battle at particular time and location. So, independent or competing written accounts can certainly improve the confidence that an event occurred or an individual actually existed. However, demonstrating that two accounts are truly independent is not easy unless they are well-dated records, such as any observations of a comet from 10th century China and central Europe.

Nevertheless, too often ancient authors fail to list their sources. Furthermore, they may be relying on each other or burrowing information from the same erroneous sources. So, in most cases, we will need external evidence to confirm their claims. Again, once several claims made by a particular historian have been confirmed by reliable external evidence, I can have greater, but not absolute, confidence in their other statements.

Although these five works were written centuries after the lifetime of Alexander the Great, they can still be used as guides to test their accuracy with archeology and other scientific results. For example, when Arrian says that Alexander the Great saw a lunar eclipse within the month of the Battle of Gaugamela, as discussed below, we could look for Babylonian tablets and use archeoastronomy calculations to confirm the time and date of the eclipse. Thus, statements in these histories might give us value clues on where to dig (sometimes literally) for more evidence about Alexander the Great.

At the same time, we have to be initially skeptical about written documents. As you know, any literate individual can write anything. Just because something is written down does not mean that it happened. As I’ve stated before, the history of the Mormon Church teaches us that it’s very possible for large numbers of people to believe in fabrications in a short period of time. I also see no reason to be superstitious and invoke demonic activity to explain the origin of the Mormon Golden Plates, especially when human lies and deception are adequate enough explanations. Thus, documents, like the book of Mormon, have the capability of deceiving thousands or even millions within a few decades after the fabrications. Certainly, claims in the literature must be verified with external evidence.

Contemporary Administrative Document from Bactria

https://www.khalilicollections.org/collections/aramaic-documents/khalili-collection-aramaic-documents-a-long-list-of-supplies-disbursed-ia17/

This is a link that shows an administrative document, identified as sample C4, which states that it was written starting on 15 Sivan in the 7^th year of “Alexandros” and then extending over the next three months. This date, which is June 8, 324 BC, is based on when Alexander ascended the throne in Babylon and not Macedonia (Naveh and Shaked 2006, pp. 199, 206). The document deals with the distribution of supplies. It is one of 30 administrative documents all written in Official Aramaic from the province of Bactria in central Asia. Some of the other documents in the collection mention Artaxerxes III, Artaxerxes V, Bessus, and Darius III. Naveh and Shaked (2006, pp. 15-19) discuss the paleography of this and the 29 related documents and the cities in Bactria where they might have been written. Naveh and Shaked (2006, p. 15) indicate that the Official Aramaic script is from the late Achaemenian period and into the time of Alexander the Great. Of the 30 documents, 29 are confirmed to be from the 4^th century BC. The 30^th document is fragmentary, but the writing suggests that it may be from the first half of the 5^th century BC (Naveh and Shaked 2006, p. 16).

Document C4 by itself indicates that it was written in Bactria during the 7th 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.

Gaugamela Campaign and a Lunar Eclipse

Although they rely on the writings of Arrian, Plutarch, Curtius Rufus, and other ancient accounts to partially understand Alexander the Great’s route to Gaugamela and Arbela, Marciak et al. (2020a) is also a good example of a research team using archeological and other scientific evidence to provide specific dates for Alexander the Great’s campaigns when the accounts in the ancient histories of Arrian, Plutarch and others are inadequate and even contradictory. The second article by Marciak et al. (2020b) is an erratum for Marciak et al. (2020a). However, it only deals with some omitted affiliations of the authors and omission of their acknowledgements, and nothing serious.

In their investigation to determine the exact date for the Battle of Gaugamela, Marciak et al. (2020a, p. 537) state:

“The exact date of the Battle of Gaugamela has long been contentious because it cannot be unambiguously fixed based only on information proved by classical writers. Only two classical sources about the Battle of Gaugamela provide us with relatively detailed chronological references – Arrian and Plutarch. However, upon consideration, they turn out to contradict each other.”

So, Arrian, Plutarch and other ancient histories aren’t good enough by themselves to specifically date this battle. They need archeological and other scientific evidence to provide details and clear up contradictions.

Arrian (3.15.7) states that Alexander’s victory at the Battle of Gaugamela occurred in the same month as a near-total lunar eclipse (Marciak et al. 2020a, p. 538). To resolve the dating inconsistencies and contradictions in the works of Arrian and Plutarch, Marciak et al. (2020a, pp. 538-539) reviewed the dates of the events from two cuneiform tablets in the British Museum and results from the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries for that time (Hunger and Sachs 1988). In the Astronomical Diaries, the Babylonians made daily astronomical observations and noted celestial events. Now, the two tablets are not ideal and were probably not contemporary with Alexander, but they were closer to the events than the ancient histories. Marcia et al. (2020a, p. 539) refer to the tablets and state:

“The tablets in question were definitely written after the described events (as their narrative continues until Seleucid times). The tablets refer to the battle as ‘raising the standard’ by Alexander (who is named ‘king of the world’) and date it to the 24^th day of the sixth month (Ululu) in the fifth year of the reign of King Darius (III). This reference can be transferred into the modern Gregorian calendar as October 1, 331 BC. Furthermore, the tablets also record two other interesting events directly preceding the battle – an outbreak of panic in the camp of the (Persian) king on the eleventh day of the sixth month (Ululu) and a lunar eclipse on the thirteenth day of that month.” [reference numbers omitted]

Using the two Babylonian tablets and the Astronomical Diaries, Marciak et al. (2020a, pp. 538-539) were able to derive more precise and consistent dates than what could be derived from Arrian and Plutarch alone. Their results are September 18, 331 BC for the panic, which they think probably coincided with Alexander’s crossing of the Tigris River, the lunar eclipse was on September 20, 331 BC and the Battle of Gaugamela occurred on October 1, 331 BC. Marciak et al. (2020a, pp. 539-543) then correct and reconcile the accounts in Arrian and others with their results. In another study, Polcaro et al (2008) used an astronomy computer program to confirm that the lunar eclipse would have been visible in the region where Alexander the Great, his troops and his opponents were located shortly before the Battle of Gaugamela and that it would also have been observed by the Babylonian astronomers on the evening of September 20, 331 BC.

Babylonian Cuneiform Tablets

McDaniel (2019) mentions two other Babylonian cuneiform tablets associated with Alexander the Great: The Chronicle Concerning Alexander and Arabia and the Alexander Chronicle. According to McDaniel (2019), the tablets are contemporary and describe the last few years of the reign of Alexander the Great, including a description of Alexander’s victory at Gaugamela about one year after it happened.

However, the contents of the two tablets are not very well preserved and the conclusions are not as definitive as McDaniel (2019) claims. The content of the Chronicle Concerning Alexander and Arabia, also called BCHP 2 and BM 41080, is especially not very well preserved.
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/bchp-2-alexander-and-arabia-chronicle/#:~:text=The%20Babylonian%20Chronicle%20concerning%20Alexander,Macedonian%20king%20Alexander%20the%20Great

The reverse side of the tablet is not preserved at all and the above website admits:

“This fragment probably deals with the second entry of Alexander the Great into the city of Babylon in 323 BCE, but the condition of the tablet hardly allows firm conclusions.”

The contents of the Alexander Chronicle are more definitive. The Alexander Chronicle, also identified as ABC 8, BCHP 1 and BM 36304, clearly refers to Alexander and his troops and king Darius (https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/bchp-1-alexander-chronicle/). Nevertheless, parts of the tablet are damaged and some details are difficult to follow.

Alexander’s Letter to the Chians

The letter from Alexander the Great to the people of Chios is an inscription on a limestone slab. It’s currently in a museum on the Greek island of Chios. McDaniel (2019) does not discuss this artifact. The inscription is in the present tense and refers to Alexander as the king (Heisserer 1973, p. 192). Heisserer (1973) discusses the dating of the slab. Some scholars think that the slab refers to events recorded by Arrian and should date to the late summer of 332 BC. Heisserer (1973, pp. 192-193) also uses Arrian and other ancient references, but disagrees. He thinks that it’s more consistent with Alexander’s attitude towards the city of Ephesos in 334 BC.

Certainly, Heisserer (1973) and his references depend on Arrian’s work. However, this is an example of where an artifact helps to confirm the claims in Arrian about Alexander. Heisserer (1973) also discusses some of the characteristics of the Greek lettering on the slab. So, potentially, the Greek vocabulary and paleography might also confirm the age of the slab. However, Heisserer (1973) and his colleagues seem confident that the slab dates from 334 to 332 BC and was from Alexander the Great.

Priene Inscription in the Temple of Athena Polias

McDaniel (2019) mentions the Priene inscription in the Athena Polias Temple. The inscription says that “King Alexander dedicated this temple to Athena Polis” ( https://www.livius.org/pictures/turkey/priene/priene-temple-of-athena-polias/priene-temple-of-athena-polias-alexander-inscription/ ). McDaniel (2019) states that the inscription dates to about 330 BC. However, other references state that its date is not that exact. The livius website linked above dates the inscription to 332-323 BC. Others have dated the inscription from 334 to 306 BC (Paganoni 2017). Sherwin-White (1985) is a researcher that thinks that the inscription was created after the death of Alexander during the reign of Lysimachus. Lysimachus lived from about 360 to 281 BC. That is, he lived during and long after the lifetime of Alexander the Great.

Contemporary Egyptian Inscriptions

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, Bosche-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.

Coins Minted during the Reign of Alexander the Great

McDaniel (2019) mentions that numerous coins were minted during the reign of Alexander the Great and after his death. Kontes (2000) further states that the posthumous minting of the coins continued for about two decades after Alexander died. Thousands of the coins still exist today (Kontes 2000).

McDaniel (2019), however, incorrectly states that the coins show Alexander’s face on them. Most experts think that the faces on the coins, such as those shown in the figures in McDaniel (2019), represent Hercules wearing a lion skin. The seated figure on the reverse side is Zeus (Kontes 2000; Gatzke 2021, pp. 98-99). Gatzke (2021) suggests reasons why Alexander the Great used the image of Hercules on his coins. Gatzke (2021, p. 103) concludes:

“Because Alexander’s extensive minting and distribution of the beardless Heracles-type had established it as the most recognizable and acceptable currency of the period from the eastern Mediterranean to India, it is no surprise that in the years following Alexander’s death, as his successors struggled for political dominance and control of his empire, they maintained this coinage. The widespread and recognizable coin type provided them with the appearance of economic and political continuity in an otherwise unstable new world.”

Scholars discovered that the minting patterns and other characteristics of the coins allowed them to distinguish early from later coins, establish a general chronology and determine where the coins were minted (Kontes 2000). Kontes (2000) further discusses how the patterns and scripts on the coins changed during the years of the reign of Alexander the Great and with the mint. Price (1991) presents further details on the characteristics of the coins. I also fully recognize that mythical beings, such as Hercules or Harry Potter, sometimes appear on coins. My point is - it’s often not the image on the coin that is important, but who had the power and wealth to issue the coins.

As discussed by Kontes (2000), Price (1991) and their references, there are certainly controversies over when Alexander began minting his coins during his reign, exactly when certain mints began to operate, and other details. However, they all agree that Alexander the Great had a large number of coins minted in his lifetime. Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. (2000, p. 342) states that Alexander the Great established at least 31 mints in his Empire between 334 and 323 BC.

Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. (2000) performed trace element analyses on silver coins minted in Macedonia during and after the reign of Alexander the Great. As a comparison, analyses were also done on two Babylonian coins. The analyses used energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF), which has the advantages of being non-destructive of the coins and it can simultaneously and accurately measure low concentrations of trace elements that are common in silver coins (Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. 2000, p. 343). The concentrations of trace elements, especially bismuth and copper, are important in identifying the location where the silver was mined, in distinguishing the coins from different mints and it can also provide evidence in identifying posthumous coins (Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. 2000, pp. 346-348). Initially, the dates and minting locations of the coins were determined by numismatists Price, Le Rider and Troxwell. A bismuth to copper plot was able to distinguish the coins into two groups. The high bismuth group were mostly associated with the Amphipolis mint in Macedonia and 13 of the 14 posthumous coins formed as distinctly separate high bismuth and high copper subgroup (Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. 2000, pp. 346-347). The low bismuth group contained four coins from Amphipolis and two from Babylon. Kallithrakas-Kontos et al. 2000, p. 348) then conclude:

“For most of them [the coins] the [analytical] results agree with the archeological attribution of the coins. In cases, where there is ambiguity in the archeological characterization, the bismuth-copper data can be used as further evidence.”

I won’t go into further detail about the discussions in these various documents. If you’re interested, you can read them for yourselves. The point is, that science helps to confirm that numerous coins were minted in Macedonia and throughout Alexander’s empire during his lifetime, which further indicates that he was a real and wealthy leader with extensive power and influence. He was not just a local ruler in Greece.

Alexander Sarcophagus

McDaniel (2019) states:

“Another piece of archaeological evidence of Alexander the Great’s exploits is the famed Alexander Sarcophagus, a remarkably well-preserved Hellenistic marble sarcophagus from Sidon dating to the fourth century BC, within a few decades of Alexander the Great’s lifetime. The carvings on the sarcophagus depict Alexander the Great’s conquests.”

She further mentions that the Sarcophagus is currently located in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum.

McDaniel’s statements on the Alexander Sarcophagus are generally accurate and Heckel (2006) presents additional information on it. Heckel (2006, p. 385) states that the style of the artwork on the Sarcophagus dates to the last third of the 4th century or as McDaniel (2019) states “…within a few decades of Alexander the Great’s lifetime.”

Although the Sarcophagus is decorated with scenes involving Alexander the Great (Heckel 2006), it did not contain the body of Alexander. The ultimate fate of Alexander the Great’s body is unknown, although scholars like, Chugg (2002), have their convictions. The Sarcophagus gets its name from its artwork of Alexander the Great’s achievements.

Traditionally, most scholars thought that the sarcophagus was the resting place of Abdalonymus, who was installed as King of Sidon in late 333 or early 332 BC (Heckel 2006, p. 385). However, there are a number of controversies associated with Abdalonymus. First of all, we’re not certain if Alexander the Great himself or someone else installed Abdalonymus as king (Heckel 2006, p. 385). Secondly, Heckel (2006, pp. 386-388) is skeptical that Abdalonymus is represented in any of the artwork and that his body was placed in the Sarcophagus.

Tyre Land Bridge

McDaniel’s statements on the Tyre land bridge are brief and generally accurate. Marriner et al. (2007), Marriner et al. (2008) and Nir (1996) further discuss the geology of the land bridge, how Alexander and his troops probably constructed it, and how nature has modified it over time. Marriner et al. (2008) contains numerous radiocarbon dates, but none of them appear relevant to when Alexander the Great constructed the land bridge.

Conclusions about Alexander the Great

The ancient histories on Alexander the Great by Arrian, Plutarch, and others are extremely valuable. However, these histories cannot be taken at face value. Marciak et al. (2020a) and other researchers demonstrate that these histories are not infallible and that archeological and other scientific evidence is often required to supplement, correct and clarify their claims. The scientific data confirms that Alexander the Great had great influence over a wide region, including Greece, Central Asia and Egypt. The enormous number of coins minted in his name further demonstrate his wealth and economic power. The evidence overwhelming confirms my hypothesis on the existence of Alexander the Great and refutes any archskeptics that might say that he did not exist.

TALKING SNAKE IN GENESIS 3

Unlike the archeology and other evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great, there’s not a shred of external evidence for the existence of the Talking Snake in Genesis 3. Now, I’m not going to wade into the controversy about the authorship of the Pentateuch and the Documentary Hypothesis. Any proponent claiming that Genesis 3 is history would have to deal with that.

We simply don’t know who wrote Genesis 3 and when they wrote it. As I mentioned before, there are scraps of Genesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but they don’t appear to include chapter 3. Now, several hypotheses could be proposed to explain the origin of the Talking Snake story:

1. The Talking Snake existed and the account in Genesis 3 was accurately passed down by Adam to Moses. Moses then wrote it down in Genesis. There would have been no human eyewitnesses for most of the events in Genesis 1-2:14. If Genesis 1-2:14 is history, God would have to have given the information in these verses as visions.

2. 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.

3. The Talking Snake of Genesis 3 was part of a made-up campfire story, a parable or based on a pagan myth that eventually was taken as fact by the ancient Israelites, like how President Reagan and his fans mistook fictional stories from World War 2 as real. William Tell (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-search-of-william-tell-2198511/ ) and a number of Roman Catholic saints (https://listverse.com/2014/05/17/10-beloved-saints-with-fictitious-biographies/ ) are probably also myths. Of course, in the United States, pro-abortionists regularly use fictional TV shows to convince Americans that abortion is a good thing. Even though they are fiction, many people believe the propaganda. Right now, a lot of Russians are believing the fictional propaganda their government is inventing about Ukraine. People also often pick and choose parts of fictional stories that they want to believe and ignore the rest, such as individuals believing in the existence of “The Force” from the Star Wars movies, while recognizing that the rest of the movies are fiction. A lot of people are gullible and believe fictions are real.

4. “Prophets” or others claimed to have visions from God about events that supposedly happened thousands of years earlier. These visions were delusions or outright lies, but a lot of people came to believe them. Joseph Smith also did this and Kat Kerr continues with this nonsense in the US.

No doubt, other hypotheses could be proposed and you are certainly welcome to add to this list. From your email on February 14, 2022 at 7:27 am Eastern US time and again on February 21, 2022 at 9:44 am Eastern US time, you claim that Genesis 3 was passed down from Adam to Moses and to others. Thus, you seem to support Hypothesis #1 rather than #2-4. Until I see good evidence for #1-2, I think that #4 or maybe #3 are far more probable.

While Alexander the Great was just a normal human being, a Talking Snake would be a supernatural being and not an ordinary snake. That means that you have to demonstrate with positive evidence that a supernatural Talking Snake is even possible. I’m open to receiving any valid evidence that you may have in your upcoming response, but at this point, as I discussed above, I give the Talking Snake a low probability of existing. To be exact, I think it's safe to call the Talking Snake a myth until demonstrated otherwise.

Because there’s absolutely no evidence for the origin of the Talking Snake, Hypotheses #3 and #4 are consistent with reality unlike #1 and #2 that depend on groundless speculation about supernatural beings and visions. As I said earlier: which is more probable that someone made up a story that was later believed or that Genesis 3 is actual history? Furthermore, conservative Christians and Orthodox Jews would have a serious problem in choosing between Hypotheses #1 and #2. Yet, there’s a problem with consistency in Hypothesis #1. While advocates of Hypothesis #1 would have to admit that Genesis 1-2:14 came as a vision from God, why exclude Genesis 3 from the same set of visions? Why should any conservative Christian or Jew believe Hypothesis #1 rather than #2?

Even if you could ever demonstrate that Moses wrote about the Talking Snake story, you still would have to somehow demonstrate that Moses had access to accurate historical information about Genesis 3 that supposedly occurred thousands of years before he was born. Just saying as you do in your Tuesday February 22, 2022 email at 8:51 am US Eastern time that the earliest known audience believed that Moses existed is no evidence that Moses actually existed. The oldest claim that we have for Moses was still centuries after he supposedly lived. We don’t know if Moses and Exodus were originally a work of fiction, borrowed from other myths, obtained in “visions” by prophets, distorted history, or actually history. Considering the archeological work discussed in Finkelstein and Silberman (2001), there’s no evidence of a mass Exodus from Egypt. The ancient Israelites were probably just Canaanites.

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.

Chugg, A. 2002. “The Sarcophagus of Alexander the Great?”: Greece & Rome, v. 49, n. 1, April, pp. 8-26.

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.

Gatzke, A.F. 2021. “Heracles, Alexander, and Hellenistic Coinage”: Acta Classica, LXIV, pp. 98-123.

Heckel, W. 2006. “Mazaeus, Callistthenes and the Alexander Sarcophagus”: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, v. 55, n. 4, pp. 385-396.

Heisserer, A.J. 1973. “Alexander’s Letter to the Chians: A Redating of SIG3 283”: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 2nd qtr, v. 22, n. 2, pp. 191-204.

Hunger, H. and A.J. Sachs. 1988. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia: I: Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C.: Austrian Academy of Sciences: Vienna.

Kallithrakas-Kontes, N., A.A. Katsanos, and J. Tourastsoglou. 2000. “Trace Element Analysis of Alexander the Great’s Silver Tetradrachms Minted in Macedonia”: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research v. B 171, pp. 342-349.

Kontes, Z.S. 2000 “The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great”: The Dating of the Coinage of Alexander the Great | Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology | Brown University (accessed February 27, 2022).

Marciak, M., M. Sobiech and T. Pirowski. 2020a. “Alexander the Great’s Route to Gaugamela and Arbela” Klio, v. 102, n. 2, pp. 536-559.

Marciak, M., M. Sobiech and T. Pirowski. 2020b. “Erratum: Alexander the Great’s Route to Gaugamela and Arbela” Klio, v. 103, n. 1, p. 408.

Marriner, N., C. Morhange, and S. Meulé. 2007. “Holocene Morphogenesis of Alexander the Great’s Isthmus at Tyre in Lebanon”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 104, n. 22, pp. 9218-9223.

Marriner, N., J.P. Goiran, and C. Morhange. 2008. “Alexander the Great’s Tombolos at Tyre and Alexandria, Eastern Mediterranean”, Geomorphology, v. 100, pp. 377-400.

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).

Naveh, J. and Shaked, S. (eds.) 2006. The Khalili Collection: Ancient Aramaic Documents from Bactria (Fourth Century B.C.E.): The Khalili Family Trust: London, UK, 288pp.

Nir, Y. 1996. “The City of Tyre, Lebanon and Its Semi-Artificial Tombolo”, Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, v. 11, n. 3, pp. 235-250.

Orsini, P. and W. Clarysse. 2012. “Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, v. 88, n. 4, pp. 443-474.

Paganoni, E. 2017. “Decreto di Priene in onore di Antigono figlio di Filippo” (in Italian, English abstract), Axon, v. 1, n. 2, December, pp. 103-110.

Polcaro, V.F., G.B. Valsecchi, and L. Verderame. 2008. “The Gaugamela Battle Eclipse: An Archaeoastronomical Analysis”: Mediterranean Archeology and Archaeometry: v. 8, n. 2, pp. 55-64.

Price, M.J. 1991. The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus: A British Museum Catalogue: Volume 1: Introduction and Catalogue: The Swiss Numismatic Society in Association with British Museum Press: Zurich and London, 509pp.

Sherwin-White, S.M. 1985. “Ancient Archives: The Edict of Alexander to Priene, a Reappraisal”: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, v. 105, pp. 69-89.

Continued XXIX and On to XLVI

XXIX

Me to David Phillips Ph.D.,

Classical Studies, University of Michigan, 2000

2/21/2022 at 3:58 PM

Here is the debate to which I would love to invite either you or one of your students to continue with us

Correspondence with Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) and with Kevin R. Henke · Continued Correspondence with Kevin : XV - XXVIII

As explained in a mail also there (second link), my Greek studies were insufficient to correctly place Polybius in time. Hence the "fake news" about Hannibal no earlier sources than Livy./HGL

XXX

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/22/2022 at 1:44 AM

Re: And I missed the 1830 Tax Record

Hi Hans,

I hope that you get some needed rest. I love sugar too, especially chocolate. However, I have high blood sugar (not diabetic yet) and I should watch how much sugar I eat.

I appreciate your honesty about Hannibal. Again, we can discuss Hannibal later, if you wish. I don't understand the Swedish academic system that you mentioned in your previous email, but for now, it probably isn't critical. I hope that you can eventually finish your degree.

Again, we're getting off on the New Amsterdam/genealogy topic. Yet, I confess, I find it far more interesting than the Alexander the Great topic that I should be working on. As we can discuss later, the parish, marriage, real estate transactions, etc. records of my mom's Dutch ancestors are originals. The originals are often photocopied and the photocopies are released to the public. Depending on state regulations, people might also be able to personally inspect the originals if they're willing to travel to the archives. So, they're not handwritten copies of copies of copies of copies, etc. like the Medieval manuscripts. We are fortunate in the US not to have had extensive wars and many of our original records going back to the 17th century still exist.

You say: "Dutch genes exist independently on whether New Amsterdam existed or not. Your genealogy was known before your chromosomes were." Certainly, there was a good document trail hidden in various U.S. state and other archives before my cousins and I had our DNA analyzed and compared. However, the DNA was absolutely essential in allowing us to identify each other, compare our family trees, track down the right family documentation and it was an important confirmation that our documentation as a whole was correct. The point is, the DNA along with the documentation actually confirmed that these DNA sequences in our bodies were once in our ancestors in New Amsterdam. DNA analyses are also absolutely essential in confirming biological relationships that may not be correct on birth or adoption certificates. For example, there were rumors in my family going back over 100 years ago that my great aunt cheated on her husband and got pregnant from the farm hand. By checking the DNA of the descendants of the resulting child and the descendants of the husband, we confirmed that the dreadful rumor was false and that the husband was the father. As another example, I got a DNA match with an individual named Madeline. After checking her family tree and some documentation, I discovered that Madeline's great, great grandmother Dorothy supposedly married a Henke. After checking other documentation and most of all comparing the amount of matching DNA for Madeline and me, it was obvious that Dorothy was not an in-law of my Henke family, but my great grandfather Henke's older sister. I won't discuss it, but I think I know why Dorothy lied about the identities of her parents. So, both contemporary documentation and DNA are important in confirming genealogical relationships.

We may not be able to cross-examine the dead, but for individuals back to about the 17th century we can compare their original documents for consistency and get DNA matches from their other descendants. This is suitable forensic evidence. I accept that. You can't do that with the Genesis genealogies. You have no contemporary evidence of any kind that Moses even existed. Yes, there's no doubt that the ancient Hebrews and modern Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians sincerely believe that Moses existed, or as you say "the earliest known audience" believed in them. But, so what? What ancient people sincerely believed about people or events that supposedly occurred thousands of years before them is no evidence that their beliefs were real or their long held traditions were accurate history. People always want their ancestors to be great heroes that overcame great challenges possibly with the help of their gods, so they make up stories. As I've stated before, both modern and ancient people had all kinds of erroneous beliefs and long-held myths. We actually have to find some sort of contemporary evidence for Moses or Adam. Otherwise, the opinions of the "earlier known audience" are groundless and worthless speculation. This is especially true when the traditional beliefs involve magical creatures, like a Talking Snake. Again, both Eve and Joseph Smith claim to have seen magical creatures, where's the forensic evidence that we should believe either of these stories? At least, we know that Joseph Smith existed, we have no evidence whatsoever for Eve. A million sincere believers in the ancient Middle East can be absolutely wrong. Now, if we were to find some ancient contemporary tablet that indicated that Moses and several hundred thousand Israelites passed through Succoth, then great. We have evidence that Moses lived and he was a leader of the ancient Israelites. We can then take other statements in Exodus more seriously, like we do for 2 Kings. But, right now, you don't have any evidence for Adam or Moses, and just because people in the 1st century AD or some other early known audience believed that they were real, there is no reason at all that they actually existed.

At the time of my ten year discussion, the individual and I had no agreement to make our emails public. So, I'll keep them private. Because you weren't involved in our exchange, I've now changed my policy and I'm willing to release our emails to the public as I state on my website but only if you are willing. Obviously, I would delete your email address to protect your privacy, but I would expect that nothing else would be deleted and nothing inserted. All emails, no matter how brief and trivial, must be included. No additional commentaries should be added to the collection without the other knowing. Just all of the complete raw emails without your email address. Nevertheless, I don't think that very many people will be interested in wading through what could end up as thousands of pages of unedited emails.

Best

Kevin

XXXI

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/22/2022 at 1:45 AM

Re: a proposal : get in a qualified person in the field of Ancient History

No. Unless Dr. Phillips is an expert on the Talking Snake of Genesis 3 or has good evidence that the Talking Snake is actually Greek mythology, I have no interest in having another individual possibly provide more tangents and diversions. However, when we discuss Alexander the Great, if you need his help, feel free to consult with him and cite any relevant publications that he may have on the historical record of Alexander the Great.

Kevin

XXXII

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/22/2022 at 1:46 AM

Re: And I missed the 1830 Tax Record

No, Hans. I'm just asking you to stay on topic. If you have some direct evidence for the existence of a Talking Snake, I welcome your comments at any time and next month we'll discuss Alexander the Great. I just don' t want you skipping from topic to topic and introducing new topics all at once. Stay on topic. You'll have your chance to comment on New Amsterdam, dinosaurs, Hannibal etc. in the upcoming years, but not all once. Be patient.

Kevin

XXXIII

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/22/2022 at 2:37 AM

This Weekend

Hi Hans

I normally compose my emails during the day and send them out after 6pm Eastern time. I'm not going to email you from Thursday February 24, 6:00 pm Eastern US time to Monday, February 28, 6pm Eastern time. This will give you a quiet weekend to get some needed rest and allow me to make some needed progress on investigating Alexander the Great. If you email me on Thursday, I'll respond after 6pm on Monday, my time. Sound Ok?

Take care

Kevin

XXXIV

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/22/2022 at 1:52 PM

Re: This Weekend

Hello to you!

First, rest on a weekend is fine, but won't necessarily mean I get rest on Monday, and in fact sometimes the street I sleep is less quiet on the weekend.

Second, I have stated direct evidence, you have dismissed it, and I answer : then you'd have to dismiss lots more as well. The only way to get on with the discussion is discussing the lots more. So have you done, by introducing Joseph Smith. I haven't complained. Except that he is less apt a comparison than Alexander (or, not Hannibal but Brennus). I have no idea what could resolve this except a discussion of the lots more.

Third, I don't think my level is so bad I would regularly have to consult David Phillips at each step. I was inviting him mainly for an occasional correction (Hannibal was corrected bc I looked up the wiki article and Polybius resurfaced). And for the sake of your questions on my competence. I have not been studying at University since March 2004. I said for joke on my FB profile that I had "studied at Méjanne" - but that's a library - though a good one and one that has texts in Greek, like Photius Bibliographia. Hence my knowledge (on quite another debate) that if Photius did not per se believe angelic movers (of celestial bodies), it was still not a novel theory in the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, but one which had been discussed among Christians before Photius (who lived about 400 years earlier). I don't think completing a degree would add much to my competence, some bad habits (like sloppiness in references) are already too well set to change at a supplementary study. I am an essayist with some academic competence, not a full-blood academician.

Fourth, you are obviously welcome to mirror my publications or even to make a parallel documentation, and to link to it from your site, thanks for the clarification.

Fifth, enjoy the time off.

The one thing I'd like to answer even before you get time to see Alexander is, the data you can check with gene tests and documents are important for accuracy - not for your basic knowledge that your family's past in New Amsterdam is history rather than fiction. If you had had no "Dutch" genes, the ancestors from there could have been genetically atypical for Dutch ethnicity or they could have been your legal ancestors with some adoptions involved (though adoptions do tend to stay within ethnic group until recently). It would not have meant you had to reassess that ancestry as Spiderman and Menaechmi. Let's make clear that when I argue historicity rather than fiction from "first known audience took it as history" this does not mean necessarily complete accuracy. Was there a Battle at Ravenna at which Theoderic of Verona beat Ermaneric? Yes and no. There were two battles of Ravenna, Ermaneric was involved 100 years earlier than Theoderic. But the Battle of Ravenna is not a role playing game that Theoderic and Ermaneric played around a drink of wine. Battles in real historic fact is what gives battles in legend.

A historic account can be challenged - if there is specific reason for it. But the fact that fictions and frauds exist is as it happens not a specific reason.

Hans Georg Lundahl

XXXV

Me to Kevin R. Henke

2/22/2022 at 2:51 PM

To think about before Alexander

Please wait with the answer to when you are prepared to bring on Alexander the Great.

"We may not be able to cross-examine the dead, but for individuals back to about the 17th century we can compare their original documents for consistency and get DNA matches from their other descendants."

Yes. But even that involves narrative from the past.

"This is suitable forensic evidence. I accept that."

For most of the past, you can't do that.

"You can't do that with the Genesis genealogies. You have no contemporary evidence of any kind that Moses even existed."

I have no contemporary evidence as you define it Julius Caesar existed. OK, coins, so Pallas Athena and Harry Potter exist ....

"Yes, there's no doubt that the ancient Hebrews and modern Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians sincerely believe that Moses existed, or as you say "the earliest known audience" believed in them."

The main thing for the discussion is:

• ancient Hebrews
• and no earlier known audience for whom Moses would have been known if real but was denied.

The criterion is earli-EST KNOWN, not just an earl-Y, and also not a hypothetical earli-ER but UNKNOWN.

"But, so what? What ancient people sincerely believed about people or events that supposedly occurred thousands of years before them is no evidence that their beliefs were real or their long held traditions were accurate history."

For "accurate" you have a point. But for history vs fiction, not so.

"People always want their ancestors to be great heroes that overcame great challenges possibly with the help of their gods, so they make up stories."

You have given no example that I find convincing. Your principle would involve Alexander being suspect of fictionality bc battle of Issos was a great challenge overcome, and with no contemporary evidence.

"As I've stated before, both modern and ancient people had all kinds of erroneous beliefs and long-held myths."

How many of these clearly involve taking fiction for normally transmitted history?

"We actually have to find some sort of contemporary evidence for Moses or Adam. Otherwise, the opinions of the "earlier known audience" are groundless and worthless speculation."

I did not say "earli-ER known" but "earli-EST known".

"This is especially true when the traditional beliefs involve magical creatures, like a Talking Snake."

I thought you claimed to be an agnostic. As such, you have no ground to single out stories that if true would need either divine or angelic, and for angelic either good or fallen intervention to work. Please note, a cultural preference shared with the Atheists you claim not to be one of, is not a valid ground.

"Again, both Eve and Joseph Smith claim to have seen magical creatures, where's the forensic evidence that we should believe either of these stories?"

We do not have forensic evidence for the battle of Issus. Or even Waterloo.

http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/archaeologists-to-unearth-ancient-town-of-issus.html

"Die offizielle Website der Gemeinde Erzin vertritt die Auffassung, dass die antike Stadt Issos auf dem Kreisgebiet belegen ist 4. Ein langes Aquädukt mit rund hundert erhaltenen Bogen durchquert die Ebene und endet an einem Standort 7 km westlich der Stadt. Dieser Fundort hat durch die intensive Bodenbearbeitung über Jahre hinweg schwere Beschädigungen der oberflächennahen archäologischen Zeugnisse erfahren. Es handelt sich zweifellos nicht um Issus, das sich am Meer 5 oder unter Berücksichtigung der Anschwemmungen seit der Antike in einiger Entfernung von der Küste befinden müsste, aber die hier gefundenen Zeugnisse finden sich auf mindestens 40 m Höhe."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzin

"At least, we know that Joseph Smith existed, we have no evidence whatsoever for Eve."

Or for Brennus? Or Alexander?

"A million sincere believers in the ancient Middle East can be absolutely wrong."

About their religion, granted. About claims of recently di[s]closed much more ancient history, or secret societies reaching back long in time, equally granted. But about claims of what seem to them normally transmitted history, not so.

How come a million sincere believers in your approach to history can't be wrong?

"Now, if we were to find some ancient contemporary tablet that indicated that Moses and several hundred thousand Israelites passed through Succoth, then great. We have evidence that Moses lived and he was a leader of the ancient Israelites. We can then take other statements in Exodus more seriously, like we do for 2 Kings."

We have no ancient contemporary tablet that indicates Alexander invaded Babylon, as far as you have so far presented.

You mentioned a Babylonian account, I suppose this would be by Berossos. We cannot prove he wasn't born after Alexander died, and only parts of his Histories are preserved.

"BEROSSUS, in the first book of his history of Babylonia, informs us that he lived in the age of Alexander the son of Philip. And he mentions that there were written accounts, preserved at Babylon with the greatest care, comprehending a period of above fifteen myriads of years: and that these writings contained histories of the heaven and of the sea; of the birth of mankind; and of the kings, and of the memorable actions which they had achieved."
https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/af/af02.htm

In the first book? Doesn't sound like he was telling the battle of Issus, more like giving an intro to himself. And stating Babylonians had 150 000 years of written history. This is insufficient to show what the situation of Alexander was. And the words are not by him, but by Alexander Polyhistor, who lived c. 100 to c. 40 BC. No doubt Alexander Polyhistor may have cited Berossus on that too, but on your principle, a citation by Alexander Polyhistor is insufficient, since not contemporary.

"But, right now, you don't have any evidence for Adam or Moses, and just because people in the 1st century AD or some other early known audience believed that they were real, there is no reason at all that they actually existed."

Your ancestors in New Amsterdam arguably believed Calvin was a real person ... now, we arguably do have real evidence from Genève, but what if that were gone?

How long after an event is past and participants are dead can the now available evidence reach and the evidence still be good?

How far from the ideals of forensic evidence can history go and still not be myth?

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, I wanted to schedule sending time to beginning of March, but that is a premium feature, so I send it now .../HGL

XXXVI

Kevin R. Henke to me

2/22/2022 at 6:12 PM

Re: This Weekend

Hi Hans

I'm so sorry to hear that you are homeless, especially during the winter. I hope your situation improves soon. I noticed that you had previously made a reference in passing to being homeless, but I thought you meant something else.

I think it's important to have a narrow topic in depth at one time. If we're discussing a wide variety of topics at once, such as: Joseph Smith, Hannibal, Alexander the Great, etc. we're more likely to make mistakes and not catch the other's mistakes.

I will spend this weekend concentrating on Alexander the Great. Otherwise, my wife and I have a very hectic life. My daughter needs a lot of support. We have the grandkids after school, I drive my son to work at 10:30 pm on certain days. Walking the dogs 5 km per day. I'm researching a book on the New Testament, etc. It's certainly not as bad as your situation, but still it doesn't give me much spare time.

I have detected no evidence of adoptions or other irregularities in the Dutch branch of my family tree. The DNA analyses for my cousins and I are consistent with our family trees for every generation going back to New Amsterdam. As I mentioned in one of my last emails, both the DNA and the documentation detected an inconsistency in Dorothy Henke's claims about her parents. So other branches of my family tree are not as simple.

I now see from your second email from today that you want me to wait until next week before replying. That's fine. This is my last email until next week.

Have a good rest of the week and weekend.

Kevin

XXXVII

Kevin R. Henke to me

3/1/2022 at 1:44 AM

This Week

Hi Hans,

I hope that you are doing well.

I will probably send my report on Alexander the Great and the Talking Snake to you tomorrow evening or maybe Wednesday evening my time (Easten US). If you decide to respond, I would like you to take two or even more weeks and construct an essay that is well referenced, coherent and thought out. Certainly, respond to my comments and certainly feel free to check my references to make sure that I've properly cited them. I expect you to use at least some peer-reviewed references and not just Wikipedia. I also don't want to watch videos. I only want to see written references in your response. Unfortunately, I'm only literate in English and I don't trust computer translators, so your references will have to be in English if you want me to be able to read them. I apologize for my language limitations. Also, as stated on my website, you're going to have to track down the references that I use and get your own copies. I will not violate copyright restrictions by sending you copies.

I really want you to construct a good response, as if you were submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal. Also, to make sure that you're not distracted, I will not email you until you finish your response and I ask that you not distract yourself by sending me emails while you're working on your response. I'll have more to say about this when I send my report.

Sincerely

Kevin

XXXVIII

Me to Kevin R. Henke

3/1/2022 at 10:40 AM

Re: This Week

I'm fairly fine with this, but if I give a reference in French, German, Latin, will you trust my translation for the quote?

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS - a lack of an actual paper stating that Berossus did not survive to us as to battle of Issos will not stop me from using it./HGL

XXXIX

Kevin R. Henke to me

3/1/2022 at 2:24 PM

Re: This Week

Hi Hans,

If you could just quote the French, German, Latin, etc. from the reference with your translation that would be great.

If a work is lost, such as Berossus or Papias, just cite the source that quoted the work (Eusebius, Syncellus, etc.) and briefly remind me that the original author's work is lost. I tend to overreference my statements. For example, if I write: "Conservative Christians generally believe that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John", I would still cite a conservative reference or two to back up what most people consider obvious. I recognize that what I find obvious, the reader may not.

I have others needing me to help them with some projects and paper reviews. If you could wait to get back to me with your response and any other emails until March 15 or even later, that would be great . If you get done early, please just wait until March 15 before responding. That would give me a couple of weeks to catch up on some other urgent projects that people want me to work on and that will leave you undisturbed to work on your response and deal with any other issues.

Thanks,

Kevin

XL

Me to Kevin R. Henke

3/1/2022 at 4:28 PM

Re: This Week

There are however Conservative Christians who think that the Apostle John was not one of the Twelve, when we talk of the Gospeller.

THE great reference being:

TH n°010 L'ÉNIGME DU DISCIPLE QUE JÉSUS AIMAIT, Jean COLSON
EAN/ISBN : 9782701000442, Nb de pages : 128 p, Année : 1969
https://www.editions-beauchesne.com/product_info.php?products_id=353

Long story short, the gospeller arguably was a Cohen (could host the Mother of God from Good Friday on, so arguably had a house in Jerusalem, was known to the Priests, while not one of the Twelve - absence of Eucharistic institution - was nevertheless present at the last Seder, and memorised the speech about the Holy Ghost), the beloved disciple doesn't rhyme too well with being one of the Boanerges whose mother asked about favours and who were going to die martyrs both of them.

Hans Georg Lundahl

XLI

Kevin R. Henke to me

3/1/2022 at 5:04 PM

Re: This Week

I agree. Here in the US, fundamentalist Protestant Christians insist that John the son of Zebedee was an apostle and that he must have written the Gospel of John, Revelation, and 1-3 John. They think that only the 11 apostles had permission from God to write the New Testament. That's exactly why it's important to include references for statements that many would think was obvious. See Hodge (2008). You can argue that with them if you wish. Now, I'll get back to my report.

Hodge, B., 2008, A Look at the Canon: How Do We Know that 66 Books of the Bible are from God?: Answers in Depth, v. 3, pp. 1-12, https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/a-look-at-the-canon/.

Best Kevin

XLII

Me to Kevin R. Henke

3/1/2022 at 7:54 PM

Re: This Week

John the Son of Zebedee was an apostle, one of the twelve apostles. Like his brother.

"They think that only the 11 apostles had permission from God to write the New Testament."

They can't, since Sts Paul, Marc and Luke weren't among them, and according to many not St James of the Epistle either.

However, the 12 Apostles were not the only set known as Apostles, we also consider the 72 Disciples as sometimes also known as Apostles. Arguably St. John the Beloved, the Gospeller, was among these as well as being a Cohen.

Since these guys think the Bible has "66 books" they get the answer to the question wrong. If they went by the local or regional Councils of Carthage and Rome (between Nicaea I and Constantinople I) and their confirmation by Trent, they would get "72 books, or 73 if Baruch is counted separately from Jeremiah" and "as the Church, relying on Her tradition, tells us".

The mistake about what John wrote the Johannine books doesn't change it is by the disciple who witnessed the Crucifixion and took God's Mother home, as being now Her stepson. And it is also not in the universal tradition of the Church, but contradicted, arguably, by some Church Fathers and martyrologies, as Fr. Colson dug up./HGL

XLIII

Kevin R. Henke to me

3/1/2022 at 8:08 PM

Re: This Week

Hi Hans,

Interesting perspective. You can debate this with the US fundamentalist Protestants because I don't agree with their position either. Because these fundamentalists are a strong political and religious force in the US, I encounter them all the time. They also dominate young-Earth creationism in the US. Meanwhile, I have to pick up my granddaughter from school and I want to get my essay to you in about 6 hours, so I won't email you further until I see your response in a couple of weeks. Then you can share more with me on the origin and inspiration of the New Testament, if you wish.

Best

Kevin

XLIV

Kevin R. Henke to me

3/2/2022 at 1:41 AM

Alexander the Great and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3

PDF attached.

Hi Hans,

My essay is attached as a pdf. Again, I would like you to take until at least March 15 to think about the issues as you respond. Certainly, respond to my comments and feel free to check my references to make sure that I've properly cited them. But, I also want you to thoroughly promote and defend, with the best evidence that you have, that the Talking Snake is just as historical or even more so than Alexander the Great. Please deal with all four hypotheses that I have raised for the Talking Snake story and why or why not you accept them. Feel free to add your own hypotheses. Don't just say that the story should be accepted because the earliest known Hebrews believed it. That doesn't work for hypothesis #4.

I also don't want you to chop my essay and make comments after every sentence or two as you often do in your responses. That's not acceptable. Your essay will eventually be released to the public at both of our websites, and no one would want to read through such a chopped up mess. Our readers would want a coherent, well thought out and well-referenced essay. So, I really want you to construct a good response, as if you were submitting it to a peer-reviewed journal. After I see your response on March 15 or later, I'll either respond to it or we can go onto the next topic.

Feel free to simply acknowledge that you received this email and that you can open and read the pdf. However, otherwise I don't want you emailing me until March 15. I want you to concentrate undistracted on your response like I concentrated on mine over the last week. (Plus, I was working on my essay part time earlier than that.) So, two weeks or more seems appropriate for a good response. If you happen to finish your response early, please wait until March 15 to send it. I have other urgent commitments.

Finally, this essay is 100% my work. No one reviewed or coauthored it.

Thanks and Best to you,

Kevin

XLV

Me to Kevin R. Henke

3/2/2022 at 12:44 PM

Re: Alexander the Great and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3

In response : I have read it through.

I won't make a pdf, and I don't know how to link to it from my blog, so unless you give permission to copy it, I can't show it from my blog - or you could make it into a link that ends in pdf, it would be included.

My response will be a blog post and I will link to Spencer McDaniel from it.* When you provide a link that ends in .pdf, I will add that in a footnote.

Hans Georg Lundahl

*Spencer McDaniel

wrote: Tales of Times Forgotten : What Evidence Is There for the Existence of Alexander the Great? Quite a Lot.
Spencer McDaniel Posted on June 14, 2019
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/14/what-evidence-is-there-for-the-existence-of-alexander-the-great-quite-a-lot/

XLVI

Kevin R. Henke to me

3/2/2022 at 2:24 PM

Re: Alexander the Great and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3

Hi Hans,

I've included a copy of my essay below.* Hope this helps. I'll talk to you in a couple of weeks.

Best

Kevin

*Kevin R. Henke

wrote (mirrored on my blog) Kevin R. Henke's Essay: Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and the Talking Snake of Genesis 3: History?
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2022/03/kevin-r-henkes-essay-alexander-great.html