Continuing with Kevin

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 from the debate under 34:27 that ends just before 37:04 - 37:17 on the post Gutsick Gibbon on Overturning Paradigms and Castile Formation

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The Carthaginians minted contemporary coins that included the image of an elephant to commemerate Hannibal's victory over Rome. The Romans also had coins at that time celebrating their eventual victory against Hannibal. Why would either side mint coins at the time for a myth? As another example, for Alexander the Great we have contemporary written records (including records from his Babylonian enemies), statues, coins, mosaics, inscriptions and other contemporary artifacts mentioning and sometimes describing him. The remains of the causeway that Alexander the Great constructed to siege Tyre still exists today. All of these artifacts confirm the histories about Carthage and Alexander the Great. There's absolutely nothing like any of this for Genesis 3. Yet, people want to believe in a Talking snake. Why? How is it justified? If you have a relative expertise in history, explain why anyone would trust Genesis 3 more than the records and artifacts about Hannibal?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Most certainly there are letters from 1815 from soldiers descrbing the Battle of Waterloo with DATES. If the letters also mention places, businesses back home, people, military leaders, etc. - all that can be checked and confirmed to rule out error or forgeries. Events mentioned in letters can be cross-checked and compared with newspaper accounts and any available census, criminal or other available government records. We can check the paleography, vocabulary and the composition of the paper for the letters to see if they're from the early 19th century. None of this can be done with Genesis 3.

I only care about Livy's work if it's supported by comtemporary archeological and other evidence, see my comments on the Carthagian and Roman coins in my other post in this section. Augustine was not a contempoary of Hannibal and I don't care about his opinion. Augustine lived centuries after these events. There's no reason to trust what he says without conformation.

How do you know that ceratopian dinosaurs are being described in the Bible? The Bible mentions beasts with horns -re'em. How do you know that they are dinosauars and not antelopes, aurochs or rhinos, which were known to exist in that area at that time? Do you have any Pleistocene or Quarternary dinosaur fossils to support your claims? Again, we have numerous dinosaur fossils from the Mesozoic, why do you believe in a Talking Snake without a shred of evidence? Why do you believe in Holocene dinosaurs when you don't have a single fossil? Where's your contemporary evidence that Moses even existed and that he received any information of God? Joseph Smith and Mohammed also claimed to have received visions from God. Do you believe them too? Why or why not?

The Haydock quotation assumes that Adam and Eve even existed and that God had any interest in inspiring Genesis 3. Where's your evidence from back then to support that?

Certainly, the ancients made up stories about their gods and their descendants believed them. The Greeks and Romans did. So did the Hebrews. And until you can produce evidence of a Talking Snake, there's no justification to believe anything in Genesis 3. Produce that evidence and I'll admit that I'm wrong.

Again, I'm willing to accept what Livy, Homer and other ancient writers say IF it's supported by contemporary evidence - such as coins, plaques, statues, written records that unambiguously name individuals and conform the historical claims. Otherwise, I'm skeptical.

So again, why then do you believe that Genesis 3 is history? What is your justification? Where's your evidence for a magical talking snake? I keep asking this and you keep coming up empty handed.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl So, the evidence that the Battle of Waterloo occurred and that Hannibal somehow used an army with elephants to attack Rome is reasonably verified. Instead of trying to divert attention away from Genesis 3 and onto Hannibal and the Battle of Waterloo that are reasonably verified, concentrate on your real problem. You have no evidence for believing in Genesis 3 and just admit it rather than going off on tangents of historical events that actually have reasonable evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke "The Carthaginians minted contemporary coins that included the image of an elephant to commemerate Hannibal's victory over Rome. The Romans also had coins at that time celebrating their eventual victory against Hannibal. Why would either side mint coins at the time for a myth?"

There are coins for Noah's Ark - which you consider a myth. There are coins for Pallas Athena, which we agree is a false goddess.

Are you suggesting we did not know Hannibal was a true character until archeologists very recently dug up these coins?

And if both sides had elephants on the coins, is a conflict the only way to explain that? How would we know the coins referred to a conflict without the evidence from history, earliest narrative we access being Livy?

"for Alexander the Great we have contemporary written records (including records from his Babylonian enemies)"

I'd very much like to see those referenced! Akkadian was not being read between 1st C and 19th C. AD. And I bet that Akkadian cuneiform tablets featuring Alexander are even more recently dug up than that. To the best of my knowledge, the authors featuring the stories of Alexander are on either Greek or Babylonian sides as little recent as Hannibal was in Livy's time.

Are you suggesting Alexander was not known until a recent dig-up of Edessan clay tablets? Or that he was as known by coins depicting him with two horns, like coins of Athena prove her historicity? Again, we would know nothing without a narrative that is in non-contemorary sources:

"Apart from a few inscriptions and fragments, texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander were all lost.[18] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life included Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman. Their works are lost, but later works based on these original sources have survived. The earliest of these is Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC), followed by Quintus Curtius Rufus (mid-to-late 1st century AD), Arrian (1st to 2nd century AD), the biographer Plutarch (1st to 2nd century AD), and finally Justin, whose work dated as late as the 4th century.[18] Of these, Arrian is generally considered the most reliable, given that he used Ptolemy and Aristobulus as his sources, closely followed by Diodorus.[18]"

WIKI, now, back to you:

"statues, coins, mosaics,"

Coins don't prove people more than gods. The statue that is so well known is centuries younger. The Alexander mosaic is from 100 BC.

In other words, you really don't know your stuff, you have no more an idea how to prove Alexander than how to prove Hannibal.

@Kevin R. Henke "The remains of the causeway that Alexander the Great constructed to siege Tyre still exists today."

The bridge Caesar ordered built over Lake Geneva doesn't, and without the history we would know nothing of the purpose of that causeway, or if evident it was for a siege, not who did it. We can only assign it to Alexander because the dating coincides with the historic - that is later narrative - dates for Alexander.

"There's absolutely nothing like any of this for Genesis 3."

We have later narrative for Genesis (based on the original one by Adam and Eve, not separately extant), as we have later narrative for Livy or for Rufus (based on the ones by Scipio Africanus and Alexander's generals, not separately extant).

"Most certainly there are letters from 1815 from soldiers descrbing the Battle of Waterloo with DATES. If the letters also mention places, businesses back home, people, military leaders, etc. - all that can be checked and confirmed to rule out error or forgeries."

How many of these, when were they exhibited to the public? Would people have known these back in 1950 when schoolbooks I read about Waterloo were written? I'd argue, the narrative we have is mainly second hand, though first hand accounts by generals involved are certainly preserved - and they are biassed sources. However, for antiquity, be it Hannibal or Alexander, the first hand accounts even of biassed sources are lost.

And the dates on letters from 1815 only mean anything if you can by narrative confirm that AD dating was already in use 200 years ago. Again, the knowledge we have depends on narratives from the past - as with Adam and Eve.

"Events mentioned in letters can be cross-checked and compared with newspaper accounts and any available census, criminal or other available government records. We can check the paleography, vocabulary and the composition of the paper for the letters to see if they're from the early 19th century. None of this can be done with Genesis 3."

The check-ups are only possible with reference to artefacts we know to be from the early 19th C. by narratives from the past. Most of these do not apply to most events known from the history of antiquity. So it is in the same boat, more or less, as Genesis 3. Not quite, but almost.

@Kevin R. Henke "I only care about Livy's work if it's supported by comtemporary archeological and other evidence, see my comments on the Carthagian and Roman coins in my other post in this section. Augustine was not a contempoary of Hannibal and I don't care about his opinion. Augustine lived centuries after these events. There's no reason to trust what he says without conformation."

Same as with Livy, then. But the problem is, your interpretation of the confirmation is totally dependent on Livy.

"How do you know that ceratopian dinosaurs are being described in the Bible? The Bible mentions beasts with horns -re'em. How do you know that they are dinosauars and not antelopes, aurochs or rhinos, which were known to exist in that area at that time?"

I thought that it was clear there was a single horn on the tip. I'd go against rhinos in favour of ceratopsians because Job says the ... oops, no, it wasn't Job that considered unicorns tameable by virgins, very much on the contrary. Well, rhinos would be an option too. However, ceratopsians would have been around at the time of the Flood, 1447 years before the Exodus.

"Do you have any Pleistocene or Quarternary dinosaur fossils to support your claims?"

I've actually conducted a survey of the fossil evidence, and it doesn't support (outside marine biota) the "geological column". It is very well compatible with all fossils being from the Flood of Noah. In each place where we deal with land vertebrates, we deal with one level of fossils. And yes, I know Karoo or Karroo has both Permian and Triassic, and some Jurassic too, but they aren't tens or hundreds of meters higher and lower in the same holes, they are kilometers to the East or West or North or South of each other, compatible with these critters having had neighbouring habitats in the time of the Flood. I specifically asked palaeontologists in Karoo, and they said there were no exceptions - even if only because one hadn't bothered to look.

@Kevin R. Henke "Why do you believe in Holocene dinosaurs when you don't have a single fossil?"

I don't believe Holocene starts before 2957 BC, so I don't believe in Holocene fossils, obviously.

"Where's your contemporary evidence that Moses even existed (1) and that he received any information of God (2)?"

1) In this case, he wrote the Pentateuch. And if you like to deny this on account of us lacking manuscripts from his time, that would cut out against our main source for Caesar too. Oldest manuscript of Corpus Caesareum is from after 900 AD. I told you, this question is my field, you are out of your depth here.

2) If he could divide the Red Sea, he arguably had divine assistance, which suggests divine vision for Genesis 1, and inspiration preventing error from what he left.

"Joseph Smith and Mohammed also claimed to have received visions from God. Do you believe them too? Why or why not?"

They didn't part the Red Sea, they didn't raise dead, they didn't give blind their eye-sight .... and I know this from what Muslims and Mormons claim of them.

"The Haydock quotation assumes that Adam and Eve even existed and that God had any interest in inspiring Genesis 3. Where's your evidence from back then to support that?"

The Haydock quotation proves Adam and Eve existed from the stories they handed down to their descendants. Like we normally prove Hannibal or Alexander existed. Remember your failures a bit higher up this turn?

"Certainly, the ancients made up stories about their gods and their descendants believed them."

Example?

"The Greeks and Romans did. So did the Hebrews."

Prove it for Greeks and Romans, before you assume a parallel for Hebrews ... once again, Greeks and Romans are way more my expertise than yours. Oh, someone "made up" Ouranos and Gaia? Possible, or also possible that Hesiod had a reveletion by nine muses - that were not sent by God, and that didn't help him raise any dead to life.

You have not proven there is such a thing as the psychology of a man who makes up a story and tells it to his descendants in a way making them believe him. I'm not presuming it about Greeks and Romans any more than about Hebrews.

"So again, why then do you believe that Genesis 3 is history? What is your justification? Where's your evidence for a magical talking snake? I keep asking this and you keep coming up empty handed."

Narratives are words in the mouth (or pen), not artefacts in the hand. You are as empty handed about Hannibal and Alexander.

"So, the evidence that the Battle of Waterloo occurred and that Hannibal somehow used an army with elephants to attack Rome is reasonably verified. Instead of trying to divert attention away from Genesis 3 and onto Hannibal and the Battle of Waterloo that are reasonably verified, concentrate on your real problem."

I am not diverting, I am showing a real parallel and insofar as either of us has a real problem, it is you, you have not studied ancient hisory or how it is known. I have

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Oh really? Coins of Noah's ark? Which one of Noah's sons minted them? By now, you should know that I'm only interested in contemporary artifacts. Just stop with the diversions (Matthew 7:3-5) and your vain attempts to equate Hannibal and Alexander the Great with a Talking Snake and magical fruit trees. Just have the courage to admit that the foundation of your religion, Genesis 3, has no historical evidence whatsoever. After you honestly answer my question, email me like you said you would and I can give you links for the references that you want to see about dinosaurs, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, etc. in the level of detail that YouTube comment sections won't permit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke "Oh really?"

Whichever remark that one was for - arguably yes. I don't recall any tongue in cheek remark.

"Coins of Noah's ark? Which one of Noah's sons minted them?"

I didn't say they were from the Ark. My point is, coins do not uniformly refer to only real people and real events, giving one example where we would disagree (the Ark) and one where we would agree (Pallas Athena).

"By now, you should know that I'm only interested in contemporary artifacts."

Harry Potter took place starting the year Nicolas Flamel would have been 665 years old, supposing he had found the Philosopher's Stone. The coins of Harry Potter and Hermione from the mint of Paris are sufficiently contemporary to 1995 to warrant credibility on your view of evidence.

On mine, we can of course consider that the oldest known public to Harry Potter considers it made up, but the oldest known public to Balkan War narratives consider them as news stories of real events.

This kind of specification is what you can't get from an ancient coin. Even if contemporary.

"Just stop with the diversions (Matthew 7:3-5)"

Didn't give any, strictly only gave relevant equations.

"and your vain attempts to equate Hannibal and Alexander the Great with a Talking Snake and magical fruit trees."

Not as events, Hannibal and Alexander were infinitely (nearly) less important, but as to the mode we have of knowing them.

"Just have the courage to admit that the foundation of your religion, Genesis 3, has no historical evidence whatsoever."

Just have the courage to admit that I give a tit for that follow up to each of your arguments, while you prefer handwaving my actual words, resuming them very casually, not to say glibly, and step out of detailed argument.

You gave a very clear challenge to my religion, I gave a very clear backchallenge, you haven't answered it. You have given no examples of one generation of Greeks inventing stories and the next one believing them as history.

"After you honestly answer my question,"

I have honestly answered question after question, argument after argument. You are the one who bailed out of honesty, so far.

"email me like you said you would"

Haven't got her reply last time I checked my inbox, so can't yet.

"and I can give you links for the references"

You can give titles and authors. I can search. Oh, nothing that Researchgate offers only for members to read, unless the argument is simply in the pre-view.

"that you want to see about dinosaurs, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, etc."

You pretend that I was enquiring, when I was actually giving you answers .... drink a coffee, get new spectacles, or stop being a hypocrite, whichever best applies to your failure to answer squarely! Fatigue, bad eye-sight, dishonesty ... whatever!

"in the level of detail that YouTube comment sections won't permit."

There is not much detail to give as to the fact that Alexander the Great is known from no narrative that is directly preserved in the narrators own words earlier than Diodorus Siculus, 1st C. BC, lesser but comparable to Homer from Troy. Given the longer longevity in pre- and early post-Flood times, comparable to at least Adam to Abraham. And given the greater chapter length, after Genesis 11, the sources are arguably written, not just preserved orally.

The three following

exchanges come in the order I answered them.

1)

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I just got an email from Erika (2:22 pm Eastern Time 12 Feb 2023) and she says that she has not heard from you. You told me two days ago that you were going to email her to get my email address. Why didn't you do what you say you're going to do?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke I did, but she may have forgot to look at the spam filtered mail.

2)

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I managed to send you my email address through messager to your Facebook account. Now, you have no more excuses for not emailing me as you said you would. Now finally answer my question by email: what is your historical evidence for a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees? After you answer my question honesty and directly without further diversions about Hannibal, the Battle of Waterloo, dinosaurs, Alexander the Great etc. I want to see all of your references for your claims about them - list the authors and other vital information of peer-reviewed journals, any URLs of websites that you may use, etc. . I'll provide references and attachments by email to support my claims. Best, Kevin

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke What you call diversions aren't such. They are very pertinent to the case.

Peer reviewed journals aren't.

3)

Kevin R. Henke

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Just stop your dishonest diversions, email me, finally admit that you have no historical evdience for a Talking Snake and magic fruit trees and that you can't equate them to the historicity of Hannibal or Alexander the Great. We can then discuss the issues in proper detail in emails and with proper referencing and attached articles. As long as you don't edit out or edit in material without my knowledge, you can even post our discussions on your blog as far as I'm concerned. If you're really interested in knowning history and geology, EMAIL me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kevin R. Henke I was nearly "editing out" one comment of yours by overlooking it.

But I know history better than you. As a Latinist, partly Grecist, I can with confidence say I know it better than any Geologist.

That's the three I meant.