Sunday, 13 February 2022

Correspondence with Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) and with Kevin R. Henke


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Gutsick Gibbon on Cross Disciplinarity Outlawed in Academia, Heat Problem, Gate-Keeping · Gutsick Gibbon's Five Points Answered, I, Heat Problem and Extra on Absence of Solutions As Criterium · Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation · Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology · Continuing with Kevin · Creation vs. Evolution : Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Correspondence with Gutsick Gibbon (Erika) and with Kevin R. Henke · Continued Correspondence with Kevin : XV - XXVIII

I
Me to Erika (Gutsick Gibbon)
2/6/2022 at 4:01 PM
Dear Gibbon - an Amateur YEC here
You can guess what video I was watching, but here it is:

(BETTER AUDIO) Online Young Earth Creationists VS Their Guests
2 Febr. 2022 | Gutsick Gibbon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76FBqjwriVo

Here are answers up to time sign 25:25 in my post (and under your video):

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/02/gutsick-gibbon-on-cross-disciplinarity.html

Enjoy!

I referenced my amateur research on Himalays, see here:

Himalayas ... how fast did they rise? · Himalayas, bis ... and Pyrenees · ter · quater · quinquies ... double-checked

Hans Georg Lundahl

II
Me to Erika (Gutsick Gibbon)
with CC to creditors
2/9/2022 at 1:44 PM
Dear Gibbon, Some Updates (CC Nils Ström, 435550-39092-202)
1) There are now three posts for two of your videos, the first two on heat problem, and now the third on Castile and Green River - with the debates with Henke included. Please do tell him, and also that it would be more neat to have the discussion per mail.
2) A fourth post in same series is my own OHKO, One Hit Knock Out, against the basic idea of "geologic column" as applied to faunal succession.

3) When I try to use the contact form on the site of Guy Berthault, my mail "hgl@dr.com" is rejected, another not mine "hgl@qq.com" is suggested, and when I refuse to change, the form doesn't work - would you contact Guy for me?

https://sedimentology.fr/

Scroll down to near bottom.

4) The post series is now four parts, tell Berthault, I'm going to add a fifth, on another blog but linked to the series, with the specifications for the experiment I want:

Gutsick Gibbon on Cross Disciplinarity Outlawed in Academia, Heat Problem, Gate-Keeping · Gutsick Gibbon's Five Points Answered, I, Heat Problem and Extra on Absence of Solutions As Criterium · Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation · Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology

5) I have a publication project. These posts could be republished with appropriate extracts from your videos in transscript (or all of those I commented on, if you like) and of Kevin R. Henke gave permission for republishing the dialogues commercially.

My own conditions are here:

A little note on further use conditions

Obviously, you would be sending my part of royalties to the account specified by CSN or on their behalf by Mr. Nils Ström, not to my usual Donativo account (If it's still visible).

My taking account of your copyright is here:

Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright

This obviously does not mean I would sue someone republishing this for you, you'd have to sue him yourselves. And if you try to sue me for the publication on my blog, it's for free, I'm not defrauding Henke of his royalties as there aren't any on the online version, not even monetised, and I consider this has journalistic interest.

Mr. Nils Ström, do you begin to see some kind of interest for CSN that they did not reckon with before your previous reply?

You already got this link, but I'm sending it to Gutsick Gibbon (Erika NN) too:

https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/02/not-interesting-to-csn.html

Hans Georg Lundahl

III
Me to Erika (Gutsick Gibbon)
2/10/2022 at 11:54 AM
The question to Guy Berthault is posed, but his contact form doesn't take my email
Here is his site:
https://sedimentology.fr/

Here is the challenge I would like forwarded to him:
Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please?

Here is the reason I don't contact him myself: on his form, when I put "hgl@dr.com" into the email slit, I get "did you mean 'hgl@qq.com'?" which I didn't, and when I don't change, the form doesn't work.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV
Me to Erika (Gutsick Gibbon)
2/11/2022 at 11:39 AM
Henke asked me to ask you for the email adress, forward mine to him as well
Here is our exchange on youtube, in the third part:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Gutsick Gibbon on Cross Disciplinarity Outlawed in Academia, Heat Problem, Gate-Keeping · Gutsick Gibbon's Five Points Answered, I, Heat Problem and Extra on Absence of Solutions As Criterium · (3) Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation · Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology · Creation vs. Evolution : Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please?

I'd be happy to continue the discussion in email format and put next post on this blog:



(I tried to copy just the last of these page links, but the mouseclick is bad here)

Hans Georg Lundahl

V
Me to Kevin R. Henke
2/13/2022 at 12:44 PM
Here is, first, the debate
Meaning here, and a few more are upcoming:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Gutsick Gibbon on Cross Disciplinarity Outlawed in Academia, Heat Problem, Gate-Keeping · Gutsick Gibbon's Five Points Answered, I, Heat Problem and Extra on Absence of Solutions As Criterium · Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation · Geologic Column : Absent from Land Vertebrate Palaeontology · Creation vs. Evolution : Could Guy Berthault Conduct a New Experiment, Please?

Second, everything I said about how history in general is known is clear and pertinent.

You may or you may not get someone in a peer reviewed journal on history agree with me, but you will not get anyone pretend for instance that we have texts by Alexander's generals - or that coins of non-human entities or fictions don't exist - or that the artefacts of Alexander outside coins (statue and mozaic) are contemporary to him.

We have the narrative about Alexander from sources written down centuries after he lived. Exactly as with Hannibal. And when it comes to slight attempts to battle-field archaeology, these would have been as inadequate for these two as with Waterloo. In case you didn't notice, the fact that "Waterloo teeth" come from the battle field cannot be proven by dentistry, it can only be proven by the narrative the dentists were offering and are offering now.

I offer exactly one basic criterium on how to divide narrative that is historic fact from narrative meant as fiction : how the earliest known audience of the narrative took it.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI
Kevin R. Henke to me
2/14/2022 at 5:24 AM
Re: Here is, first, the debate
Hi Hans.

Thanks for emailing me and I hope that you have a good Valentine's Day (an unofficial holiday in the US). You are quite right. Erika emailed me and found your two emails in her spam folder. She was surprised because that had not happened to her before. Nevertheless, I apologize for doubting you and I noted that in the comments section of Erika's video.

My requirements for any debate are listed here:

https://sites.google.com/site/respondingtocreationism/debates

Probably like you, I'm very busy, but I'll try to respond to your emails as time permits. That probably won't be more than once per day and it may be only a few times per week depending on how much research is needed and what else I'm doing. I was once in an email debate with an individual that lasted for 10 years. We'll see if we break that record! 😀

You tend to trust "the earliest known audience of the narrative that took it." This is a flawed policy. People lie and make up stories about past events all the time. Eyewitnesses often misinterpret events, especially if they're superstitious. To determine if a past event is likely (I recognize that nothing is ever absolutely proven), you need multiple and diverse sources of contemporary independent evidence and conformation, If numerous and independent eyewitnesses on different continents reported seeing a comet passing through certain constellations in a particular year, then the comet was probably there. We could further confirm this by trying to find it, calculate its orbit and past near-passes with the Earth. As I indicated earlier, I will certainly accept statements by Livy, Josephus and other ancient historians writing long after the events IF their claims could be confirmed by archeology and other contemporary evidence. Nevertheless, often we cannot confirm what the ancients wrote and we just have to remain skeptical until adequate evidence comes forward to support their claims, if ever. I think that there's enough evidence through contemporary coins, statues and records to state that Alexander the Great existed and was a powerful military leader. The Roman historians were right, at least about that much. You stated in your previous posts that this archeological evidence is not contemporary and unreliable. Then, produce your archeological references to support your claims once we finish with Genesis 3 and I'll also do so at that time.

Now, give me the articles, links to internet essays and any other sources that have evidence that Genesis 3 is history and not just a made up story. The fall of Adam and Eve is a critical foundational issue in Christianity and you need to stop ignoring the serious controversies over its historicity. That's the bottom line. Once we have dealt with Genesis 3, then we can discuss Alexander the Great, Waterloo dentures, etc. I recognize that you have already admitted that you are not an expert on geology, but I might raise additional objections to your earlier comments on this and dinosaurs in the future. If you have no historical evidence for Genesis 3, just admit it and stop procrastinating and wasting our time. You either have evidence of Genesis 3 or you don't and simply believe in it because you want to. After that, you could then try to convince me that the historical data on Alexander the Great, Waterloo, etc. are no better than Genesis 3 if that's your plan. Yet, I don't see how anyone could rationally believe that the evidence for Alexander the Great is no better than a Talking Snake or magic fruit trees. Whatever you say, you will need to provide evidence and thoroughly reliable references to back up your claims. I'll do the same.

Best

Kevin

VII
Me to Kevin R. Henke
2/14/2022 at 1:27 PM
Re: Here is, first, the debate
I'll answer, in great detail, your argument:

"You tend to trust "the earliest known audience of the narrative that took it." "

I tend to take genre assignment (historic vs made up) according to how earliest known audience took it. Accounts that are undoubtedly historical include mistakes and lies. Oradour sur Glane was destroyed, one account says by German occupant, one account says Resistance blew up dynamite by bad handling and blamed the Germans. ONE of these accounts MUST be wrong.

In the case of Legio Fulminatrix, the prayers of Christian legionaries and those of an Egyptian magician could be combined into one account (leaving at least one of the prayers outside the explanation), but not with great probability. A legion entirely made up of Christian legionaries would not likely have tolerated a magician, Egyptian or otherwise. However, for instance a Christian priest could have been misinterpreted by Pagans as a magician, and if he was Coptic, we have Egyptian too. On the other side, an Egyptian magician with an entirely un-Christian legion could have worked the prodigy and some Christian might have wanted to cash in on it - as a Christian, I find this less likely. You know the story from Carrier, right?

"This is a flawed policy. People lie and make up stories about past events all the time."

Not quite so often as to make history a desperate pursuit. But often enough for one to have to decide (subjectively) which of two conflicting accounts is the most likely. See above. Making up for fun tends to be preserved in the genre "made up for fun"

"Eyewitnesses often misinterpret events,"

Sometimes, and obviously when it comes to the strength of Hercules, I consider paternity by Jove is a very major misinterpretation.

"especially if they're superstitious."

In mouths of Atheists and (by extension, since culturally similar) Agnostics, "superstitious" tends to mean "believing the supernatural" which I obviously disagree with, both as a definition and when it comes to determining whether misunderstanding is likelier than taking the account straight off. Btw, a misunderstanding doesn't belie the event as external event, it's usually concerned with explanations. Tiryns being wrong on why Hercules was strong doesn't belie he killed a lion with his hands.

"To determine if a past event is likely (I recognize that nothing is ever absolutely proven), you need multiple and diverse sources of contemporary independent evidence and conformation,"

They are a plus, but you do not need them. Their absence only belies the event if the presence would be expected. As I was just discussing, with events in Antiquity, these plusses are usually lacking.

The school of history you refer to was founded in Sweden arguably at my own alma mater, Lund, by one Weibull. It works, as said, tolerably well for recent history, but is very bad for earlier history. It was arguably calculated from a desire to stamp things like Book I in Livy or Ynglinga Saga as myths, at least for the earlier parts.

I saw a video stating "Vikings" from the Vendel era had been found in Estonia, 40 of them in a mass grave. This fits very well with Adils (thought mythical by Weibull) starting the Swedish presence in Finland. Swedes back then would not have distinguished Finns and Estonians as two different peoples, so the only misunderstanding would have been in relation to later nation boundaries.

"If numerous and independent eyewitnesses on different continents reported seeing a comet passing through certain constellations in a particular year, then the comet was probably there."

Great way of assessing 19th, 20th, 21st C. comets. Perhaps you could find a Chinese or Hindu witness to Halley's comet in 1066, but we didn't wait for those before believing it.

"We could further confirm this by trying to find it, calculate its orbit and past near-passes with the Earth."

Here we have history needing further support from natural laws determining a phenomenon ... it seems, history is simply not your thing.

"As I indicated earlier, I will certainly accept statements by Livy, Josephus and other ancient historians writing long after the events IF their claims could be confirmed by archeology and other contemporary evidence."

Livy's Romulus counted as infirmed a few decades ago, since earliest townscape was carbon dated to 550 BC. However, we know from Minze Stuiver and Berndt Becker that most years from 750 (the nearabouts of Romulus) to 450 (into the Republic) carbon date as 550 BC, it's called the Hallstadt plateau and has been proven by dendrochronology. Even if I were sceptical on finding an absolute dating by dendro this far back, I'd accept this as the outer limits have carbon dates I accept. Here is the work:

High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC
Minze Stuiver (a1) and Bernd Becker (a2)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/highprecision-decadal-calibration-of-the-radiocarbon-time-scale-ad-19506000-bc/F1AB60097B0184501418D3EAEAD2EA90

In other words, Romulus (son of Mars according to Pagans, but not all ancients who accepted his historicity) is now weakly confirmed rather than strongly infirmed. It was a mistake to ditch him in the first place.

"Nevertheless, often we cannot confirm what the ancients wrote and we just have to remain skeptical until adequate evidence comes forward to support their claims, if ever."

No. That's not how one certifies Ancient History. It's not how my strongly Atheist Latin teacher would have confirmed Hannibal.

"I think that there's enough evidence through contemporary coins, statues and records to state that Alexander the Great existed and was a powerful military leader. The Roman historians were right, at least about that much."

It so happens, they did not bother to prove it your way.

To them, ancient narrative was enough, especially if given by prestigious Greeks. And for that matter about matters like Trojan War or more recent, since events before the Trojan War were counted as myths - meaning both that the stories are lifting, and that the cultural distance would make verification less stringent. Nevertheless, Plutarch considered Theseus and Romulus fairly comparable.

Coins don't prove a story that's not already credible otherwise.

Harry Potter Coins and Medals | Monnaie de Paris

"You stated in your previous posts that this archeological evidence is not contemporary and unreliable."

I stated coins are not reliable, and the other archaeological evidence is not contemporary. And I also stated, this does not matter in the presence of a narrative from earlier generations that's not contested by an alternative one.

"Then, produce your archeological references to support your claims once we finish with Genesis 3 and I'll also do so at that time."

I don't think you need any. That was my exact point. You have some, but they are far less decisive than the narrative from the ancients.

"Now, give me the articles, links to internet essays and any other sources that have evidence that Genesis 3 is history and not just a made up story."

I gave you Haydock's comment for a brief overlook over the question. Genesis 3 is unlikey to be archaeologically evidenced as earthly paradise before the Flood can hardly be dug up. However, there is some evidence of the four rivers going outward to the corners of Earth's landmasses, if we look at directions of rivers.

Creation vs. Evolution : Trying to Break Down "Reverse Danube" or "Reverse Euphrates" Concept
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/07/trying-to-break-down-reverse-danube-or.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Damien Mackey on Four Rivers and Related, I to X
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/07/with-damien-mackey-on-four-rivers-and.html

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Continuing Previous, XI to XX - are Nile Rivers Excluded?
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2018/07/continuing-previous-xi-to-xx-are-nile.html

"The fall of Adam and Eve is a critical foundational issue in Christianity and you need to stop ignoring the serious controversies over its historicity. That's the bottom line."

I'm not ignoring them, I'm answering them.

"Once we have dealt with Genesis 3, then we can discuss Alexander the Great, Waterloo dentures, etc."

On the contrary. You ditch Genesis 3 because it is just ancient narrative, and thereby you show you are badly equipped to discuss Alexander the Great.

"I recognize that you have already admitted that you are not an expert on geology, but I might raise additional objections to your earlier comments on this and dinosaurs in the future. If you have no historical evidence for Genesis 3, just admit it and stop procrastinating and wasting our time."

I have precisely the kind of evidence that you wrongly have decided to consider dismissable : ancient narrative.

"You either have evidence of Genesis 3 or you don't and simply believe in it because you want to."

You either take ancient narrative as evidence, or you believe Alexander the Great on the wrong basis.

"After that, you could then try to convince me that the historical data on Alexander the Great, Waterloo, etc. are no better than Genesis 3 if that's your plan."

* Adam told Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahaleel; Seth told Enosh, Cainan, Mahaleel, Jared, Enoch; and so on, until we have the account of Moses.
* Scipio Africanus told his children and his adoptive grandson Scipio Aemilianus, and so on, until we have the account of Livy.
* Alexander's generals made accounts that we don't have, Diodorus Siculus had access to them and used them for his extant account.

"Yet, I don't see how anyone could rationally believe that the evidence for Alexander the Great is no better than a Talking Snake or magic fruit trees."

You have a problem in using the miraculous parts as evidence against historicity.

Rule of Nero is historical? Nero killing Agrippina (his mother) is at least credible as conspiracy theory?

Well, Tacitus used as confirmation of his guilt that a woman at that moment gave birth to a snake. 23 March AD 59 is not far off from Tacitus' writing the Annals before the end of 120 AD (when he died).

As for Tacitus having access to Acta Senatus, it is probable, on the same basis as Haydock's theory about how Adam's account reached Moses : as a theory showing the transmission of historic material is possible as such.

Modern scholars believe that as a Roman senator, Tacitus had access to Acta Senatus—the Roman senate's records—which provided a solid basis for his work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(Tacitus)
[4] The annals by Cornelius Tacitus, Anthony John Woodman 2004 ISBN 0-87220-558-4 pages x to xx


Modern scholars themselves do not have access to Acta Senatus and cannot verify how much or little Tacitus depends on these.

"Whatever you say, you will need to provide evidence and thoroughly reliable references to back up your claims. I'll do the same."

What I am discussing is your inability to see what constitutes such when it comes to ancient history.

I'll give you one example more, against Weibull. He obviously did not believe that Odin had come to the Uppsala region. However, if Odin had that, it would have been while Proto-Norse was spoken. He could not be author of a poem in Old Norse as to that linguistic trapping. However, in oral transmission of poetry, language can change. Jackson Crawford had a friend who reconstructed the Proto-Norse version of a stanza of Havamal (one which has links to Qoheleth) ... and the Proto-Norse version, while not exactly the same in metre, is still metrical.

In disciplines outside the Bible, you get old "myths" and "semi-mythic legends" more and more confirmed, starting when Schliemann dug up Troy. It's just Bible scholarship that lags behind.

You have another problem, when you say the foundational nature of Genesis 3 is apt to through reasonable doubts in it. I don't doubt the Muslim accounts of Mohammed or Mormon ones of Joseph Smith as to their history (confer the distinction about Hercules : the Nemean lion may have argued him son of Zeus to those believing in Zeus, but it is definitely worth believing even without believing in Zeus). That is also a bad move when attacking historicity of Genesis 3.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VIII
Kevin R. Henke to me
2/14/2022 at 3:04 PM
Re: Here is, first, the debate
No, Hans. You didn't answer my question. I'll make it easy for you. Which of the following actually existed?

A. President Abraham Lincoln B. The Talking Snake of Genesis C. Warner Brothers' Marvin the Martian D. A and B only.

After you answer this question, I'll deal with the rest of your claims in your email and your earlier statements.

Be open about what you believe and stop dancing around the edges.

Kevin

IX
Me to Kevin R. Henke
2/15/2022 at 12:27 PM
Re: Here is, first, the debate
A and B only.

Warner Brothers' is by first known audience considered to be made up entertainment.

Abraham Lincoln and Genesis 3 aren't.

Now, there are a lot of things Weibull school of history could show on Lincoln, which it can't for Genesis 3 - but much of it would be lacking for Alexander and Hannibal, as already explained. Do you get it this time?

I wasn't dancing about the edges, I was answering point after point.

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, so far you have N O T answered my challenge : show one example where one generation invented stuff for entertainment and the next or their descendants believed it as fact. Not one single example shown./HGL

X
Me to Kevin R. Henke
2/15/2022 at 1:09 PM
As I have already mentioned Weibull ...
Here is the article in English and then in Swedish:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Weibull

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curt_Weibull

And here is the paragraph we are concerned with.

His most important and acclaimed work is a criticism regarding the interpretation and the ahistoricism of the Gesta Danorum by the 12th century Danish historian Saxo Grammaticus. This piece was named: Saxo. Kritiska undersökningar i Danmarks historia från Sven Estridsens död till Canute VI (Saxo. Critical studies in Denmark's history from Sven Estriden's death to Canute VI), and was rather controversial at the time, as it revealed the vague basis of Denmark's older history of the time.


While the Swedish article is more detailed:

Under åren 1915 till 1921 framlade han ett antal mycket kritiska uppsatser, som angrep den svenska historieskrivningen runt 1000-talet för tradering, det vill säga att den byggde på uppgifter som överförts i flera led och förvanskats över tid. Han menade att historieskrivare som Snorre Sturlasson och Saxo Grammaticus i alltför hög utsträckning hade använt isländskt sagomaterial baserade på muntliga källor, i förhållande till användningen av källor som runinskrifter, Vita Anskarii, Adam av Bremens Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum, samt norsk-isländska skaldedikter. En av de händelser där han visar på motsägelser i de olika källorna är beskrivningen av Slaget vid Svolder.


This translates as:

During the years 1915 to 1921 he proposed a series of very critical essays, which attacked the Swedish historiography around XIth C. because of the phenomenon of "traditing" - meaning it built on facts that had been tradited over many intermediates and had been distorted over time. He considered that historiographers like Snorre Sturluson and Saxo Grammaticus too much used Icelandic - saga material / tale material - based on oral sources, as against sources like Rune inscriptions, Vita Anskarii, the Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum by Adam of Bremen, and Norwegian-Icelandic scaldic poetry. One of the events where he shows contradictions in the diverse sources is how the Battle at Svolder is described.

My point being of course, like Livy, Saxo and Snorre were using orally transmitted material and that he was wrong to ditch this.

Rune inscriptions are very short, therefore very unspecific as to historical concatenations of events.

Vita Anskarii and Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum are the pov by foreign missionaries - very unconcerned with events largely prior to missionaries arriving. And their descriptions of contemporary events and institutions are largely limited to areas where they had missionaries sent. Scaldic poetry is by definition flattering court poetry and always intends to flatter one particular man.

And there are with totally Weibull compatible dissing of oral sources also contradictions between accounts of battles way later on.

Now, the point I am making is, Snorre and Saxo were using material as old as the arrival of Odin in Sweden, with his stepson's son's Fyolner drowning in a vat of mead at the court of Frotho Haddingson. They differ on whether ...

a) Snorre, Frotho Haddingson = Peace-Frotho, contemporary of Augustus
or b) Frotho Haddingson, to Saxo = Frotho I, while Peace-Frotho = Frotho II, centuries later.

This means, we deal with historians who wrote down things that had been orally transmitted for over 1000 years.

With pre-Flood and early-post-Flood longer lifespans, the account which Moses certainly, Abraham (in my view probably) before him wrote down is closer to the space dividing Trojan War from Homer than to that dividing Odin from Saxo or Snorre.

And yes, to me, unlike Curt Weibull, this is enough for at least basic historic credibility, if not infallibility of each detail.

Hans Georg Lundahl

XI
Kevin R. Henke to me
2/16/2022 at 2:03 AM
Re: Here is, first, the debate
Hi Hans

I hope you are doing well. Thanks for finally answering my question. We can now continue.

You asked me: "show one example where one generation invented stuff for entertainment and the next or their descendants believed it as fact. Not one single example shown." I think that the Book of Mormon is an example. Although I don't think the Spaulding Manuscript Hypothesis is convincing, I think that Joseph Smith plagiarized one or more entertaining novels that were written at that time, where members of the 10 lost tribes of Israel sailed to the Americas. The Mormons came to believe that story as history. Skeptic and magician James Randi used to complain that people thought that his entertaining magic shows involved real supernatural powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi . In the US about 40% of Americans believe that some people have psychic or other supernatural powers despite the legal claims that the psychics have to give that their work is for entertainment only. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/01/new-age-beliefs-common-among-both-religious-and-nonreligious-americans/ It's not unusual for people to be deceived into thinking that entertainment, hoaxes or practical jokes are real. This includes scientists and other trained professionals that should know better. People also often take novels very seriously. Although "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was a work of fiction, it proved to be a powerful work for Abolitionists. I think that too many people take Ayn Rand's philosophical novels too seriously. In the US we have numerous "urban legends", which are false information derived from misinterpretations derived from novels, misinterpretations, hoaxes and practical jokes that are widely believed as fact in the US. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_legends In the 1980s, photographs and films from the Gulf Breeze UFO hoaxes even fooled physicist Bruce Maccabee, who is an expert on interpreting hoaxes in photos and films. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Breeze_UFO_incident

Next, I'll send you a reply on the historical evidence for Alexander the Great. I'll explain why I think it's reasonable to conclude that he lived and was a powerful military leader. I'll then compare that with the Talking Snake of Genesis 3. I'll deal with the other issues that you've raised: Carl Weibull, dinosaurs, Waterloo, Hannible, etc. one by one in the upcoming months to years. I only want to concentrate on one issue at a time. Considering that I'm very busy with other projects, I'll get back to you on my views on Alexander the Great probably sometime in March. It might be sooner, depending on everything I find. I want to do a thorough job and not be rushed.

Thanks for your patience

Kevin

XII
Me to Kevin R. Henke
2/16/2022 at 12:47 PM
Re: Here is, first, the debate
"I think that the Book of Mormon is an example. Although I don't think the Spaulding Manuscript Hypothesis is convincing, I think that Joseph Smith plagiarized one or more entertaining novels that were written at that time, where members of the 10 lost tribes of Israel sailed to the Americas. The Mormons came to believe that story as history."

Obviously, if you are right about the matter, we here have one man actually deceiving (unless he was deceived by demons) - and equally obviously, the content was changed to be rendered less identifiable and to suit specifics of Mormon belief. Once this deception is done, we are not dealing with entertainment but with deception.

We do not have descendants of the novelists directly taking the novels as history.

And I'd like to know the titles of this or of these entertaining novels.

"Skeptic and magician James Randi used to complain that people thought that his entertaining magic shows involved real supernatural powers"

But here we don't have a story, we have an enactment ... and the complaint would be real good publicity, so a thing he would be likely to invent. The Dimond Brothers are obviously right that some preternatural and demonic things point to the reality of the Gospel indirectly (as against Atheism), but I think they are wrong to assume Bian lian is done by demons.

By the way, all the things I have so far seen attributed to Odin (at his visit to Sweden) are compatible with what a good (but highly abusive) hypnotist could achieve for a few well conditioned subjects (which would have been strategically chosen among the previous rulers).

"In the US about 40% of Americans believe that some people have psychic or other supernatural powers despite the legal claims that the psychics have to give that their work is for entertainment only."

I don't think the legal claims are always sincere, and we are not dealing with a story of events, but with an explanation. I would also consider the practising psychics would not necessarily coincide with those who have the "psychic powers".

"It's not unusual for people to be deceived into thinking that entertainment, hoaxes or practical jokes are real."

In cases like men who hold weights they shouldn't been able to lift and things like that - less likely to happen about an event in your community's past. Or totally unlikely. Again, deliberate deception, as from Odin or Joseph Smith, is another matter. But even that has to be out of sight of the deceived community's immediate memory. Odin could fool Swedes he had created the world, but not that the Swedes had been created by him as he arrived. Joseph Smith could fool Americans about pre-Columbian history, but was not pretending to be attending a service by Ten Tribes Pre-Columbians at a regular basis in Harmony PA. Mohammed's Coran could be inaccurate about relation between Aaron and Our Lord's Blessed Mother, but not about the Ethiopian attempted invasion around his birth time to Mecca.

"People also often take novels very seriously. Although "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was a work of fiction, it proved to be a powerful work for Abolitionists."

How many tried to fund Arthur Shelby's rebuying the farm? Fiction should be taken seriously on the moral level.

"I think that too many people take Ayn Rand's philosophical novels too seriously."

Phew ... then you aren't the crew who says that about LotR! You know the saying "if you read one of Atlas Shrugged and Lord of the Rings in your teens and take it seriously, one is likely to leave you emotionally stunted and incapable of dealing with real life - and the other one of course involves orcs" (quoting from memory and haven't the citation ready, sorry).

Same thing for Isaac Asimov's Foundation. It's taken too seriously.

Re : urban legends.
// Bloody Mary is a folklore legend consisting of a ghost or spirit conjured to reveal the future. She is said to appear in a mirror when her name is called multiple times. The Bloody Mary apparition may be benign or malevolent, depending on historic variations of the legend. The Bloody Mary appearances are mostly "witnessed" in group participation game /// Baby Train is an urban legend which claims that a small town had an unusually high birth rate because a train would pass through the town at 5:00 am and blow its whistle, waking up all the residents. Since it was too late to go back to sleep and too early to get up, couples would have sex. This resulted in the mini baby-boom. //

This is the kind of things people will say about the universe they live in, but neither of them is a historical statement about unique events in the community's past as they recall it.

I am not going into whether Gulf Breeze actually was a hoax or not, if rather the debunking was a hoax. While I don't believe in aliens, I do believe in, for instance, demons showing themselves in various shapes. But the question was not about hoaxes, but about things deliberately shared for fun and originally taken as entertainment. How do they, if at all, change into false historic past?

"Next, I'll send you a reply on the historical evidence for Alexander the Great. I'll explain why I think it's reasonable to conclude that he lived and was a powerful military leader. I'll then compare that with the Talking Snake of Genesis 3."

Do.

"I want to do a thorough job and not be rushed."

Don't get rushed.

"I'll deal with the other issues that you've raised: Carl Weibull, dinosaurs, Waterloo, Hannible, etc. one by one in the upcoming months to years. I only want to concentrate on one issue at a time."

Less appreciated - Carl Weibull and Hannibal are part of the same issue as Alexander the Great : namely on the past being known mainly by narrative and not always even contemporary one. I'd prefer one principled reasoning and threshing that out.

But obviously, if you deny both Alexander and Hannibal being examples, you could reason each one of them as you presume it to be a counterexample.

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, reasonably fine for a homeless man ... reasonably./HGL

XIII
Kevin R. Henke to me
2/17/2022 at 1:36 AM
Re: Here is, first, the debate
Hi Hans

Here are some possible sources that Joseph Smith used for the Book of Mormon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

It's certainly possible that some of the descendants of Solomon Spalding, E.T.A. Hoffmann and Gilbert J. Hunt are Mormons. I don't know. Nevertheless, the point is that Joseph Smith and others have taken ideas and phrases from works of fiction, included them in their works and then passed them off as historical fact.

President Ronald Reagan was getting somewhat senile during his last term in office. He would sometimes confuse movie plots with history. For example, at the annual ceremony for the Congressional Medal of Honor in October 1983, he cited a fictitious event either from the 1944 movie "A wing and a Prayer" or a 1944 Reader's Digest article as an example of courage during WWII. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2000/10/12/reagans-whoppers/7e548625-b462-4b75-852d-b49a2f439393/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars-Erik_Nelson My grandmothers in the last years of their lives would also think that their delusions were real. So, people are frequently tricked by crooks (like Joseph Smith or Nigerian Princes) or mistaken by leaders into believing that fictional events are real. I don't believe that demons are involved in any of this. It's just that people are often gullible and unwise and crooks know how to exploit that.

Best

Kevin

XIV
Me to Kevin R. Henke
2/17/2022 at 12:55 PM
Re: Here is, first, the debate
The point is, while Spalding, Hoffmann, Hunt were used as sources for the book of Mormon, possibly, and some of their descendants (improbably with Hoffmann, he died of syphilis at 46 bc a celibate) may have been Mormons, that's not what we are looking for.

The point is, Hunt's descendants (if any) didn't come to think that the book ... I looked it up and didn't find any Hunt.

I actually found no novelist ... wait, I did find the Hunt reference.

The point is, "The Late War between the United States and Great Britain" contributed nothing to events in Book of Mormon. It also is not a novel. It is a contemporary account (1816 in relation to 1812) of a real event which no one doubts. The one thing Hunt did for the book of Mormon (if we are right to suppose a human and fraudulent authorship) was showing it was possible to write a narrative in the style of the King James Bible.

The Golden Pot (by Hoffmann) is instructive:

  • Anselmus encounters Archivarius Lindhorst, the last archivist of Atlantis
  • Archivarius Lindhorst is a guardian of ancient treasures (like Moroni)
  • Significant events occur on the fall equinox
  • Anselmus receives a gold record with writing and is asked to decipher it


And obviously, the entertainment fiction to this day has found no community of believers. Lindhorst remains to Hoffmann readers, as Red Book of Westmarch to Tolkien readers, a charming way to show an illusion of documentary, but Hoffmann readers and Tolkien readers don't take it for actual documentary evidence to this day.

When the fraud by Joseph Smith takes place, he can't fool people into believing something that they had not known and believing they had knewn it all along, that it is their normal historic memory, on the contrary, he uses sth which they had long suspected (in diverse learned comment from Throwgood and Penn to Worsley) and confirms it with a para-normal way of "knowing history".

This can be compared to how Edgar Cayce as a kind of psychic confirms the "Atlantic and pre-Atlantic" theories of Churchyard (Mu and Lemuria) as per his visions having actually taken place.

And similarily, in 1717, some people get convinced that King Solomon and Hiram Abbiff had founded a secret society to explain to a few select enlightened people that different religions all mean the same thing ... but they did not get convinced of having read it in the Bible, or in Biblical history, or in Livy, but of this having been kept alive by a secret society - another paranormal way of "knowing history".

You still have no single example of made up entertainment becoming believed as normally known history, as a war taking place so many decades or centuries before that other event, known very baldly (without supporting epics or tragedies) as "return of the Heraclids" or as a founder of the city you knew and the history of which you knew.

Let's say you live in NYC. How likely is it Adriaen Block and Cornelis Jacobsz are made up fictions? Or you live in Philadelphia, is William Penn taken from a novel by Tolkien or Hoffmann? As this is fairly recent history, you may have documents and artefacts from the time to back it up, but if this were lost, would this make Block, Jacobsz and Penn into mythology? That's what you need to consider when you take into account Romulus in Livy. Yeah, I know you want to beginning of March to get to him, but I'm going a bit in advance ...

Hans Georg Lundahl


From letter XV on, I'm starting a new post. You'll have to wait a little, until it has some substance./HGL
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)