Henke 2022ew
Lundahl (2022o) Versus Hypothesis #2: Could Genesis 5 have been in a Vision from God?
Kevin R. Henke
September 15, 2022
In Henke (2022a), I proposed four hypotheses to explain the origin of the Talking Snake story in Genesis 3. They are:
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.
As a conservative Roman Catholic, Mr. Lundahl in Lundahl (2022c) and Lundahl (2022m) prefers Hypothesis #1. As I further discussed in Henke (2022b), other conservative Christians or Orthodox Jews might prefer Hypothesis #2 as an explanation of how Moses obtained information on Genesis 3 and perhaps all of Genesis. As a secularist, I think that either Hypotheses #3 or #4 are far more probable explanations. In Henke (2022b), Henke (2022bh), Henke (2022dL), Henke (2022ee), Henke (2022ej) and my other essays, I responded to Mr. Lundahl’s defense of Hypothesis #1 in Lundahl (2022c) and his subsequent essays.
Except for Genesis 1:1-2:14, Lundahl (2022o) further tries to demonstrate that Genesis and, in particular Genesis 3 and 5, is actually a human-transmitted history rather than a series of visions from God (Hypothesis #2) or a myth (Hypotheses #3 and #4). In Lundahl (2022o), Mr. Lundahl compares the genealogy of Genesis 5 with some visions from Revelation (the Apocalypse) and Ezekiel:
‘[9] I John, your brother and your partner in tribulation, and in the kingdom, and patience in Christ Jesus, was in the island, which is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus. [10] I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, [11] Saying: What thou seest, write in a book, and send to the seven churches which are in Asia, to Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamus, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea. [12] And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks: [13] And in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, one like to the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the feet, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. [14] And his head and his hairs were white, as white wool, and as snow, and his eyes were as a flame of fire, [15] And his feet like unto fine brass, as in a burning furnace. And his voice as the sound of many waters.
[16] And he had in his right hand seven stars. And from his mouth came out a sharp two edged sword: and his face was as the sun shineth in his power. [17] And when I had seen him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying: Fear not. I am the First and the Last, [18] And alive, and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell. [19] Write therefore the things which thou hast seen, and which are, and which must be done hereafter. [20] The mystery of the seven stars, which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches. And the seven candlesticks are the seven churches.’
‘The word of the Lord came to Ezechiel the priest the son of Buzi in the land of the Chaldeans, by the river Chobar: and the hand of the Lord was there upon him. [4] And I saw, and behold a whirlwind came out of the north: and a great cloud, and a fire infolding it, and brightness was about it: and out of the midst thereof, that is, out of the midst of the fire, as it were the resemblance of amber: [5] And in the midst thereof the likeness of four living creatures: and this was their appearance: there was the likeness of a man in them. [6] Every one had four faces, and every one four wings. [7] Their feet were straight feet, and the sole of their foot was like the sole of a calf's foot, and they sparkled like the appearance of glowing brass. [8] And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides: and they had faces, and wings on the four sides, [9] And the wings of one were joined to the wings of another. They turned not when they went: but every one went straight forward. [10] And as for the likeness of their faces: there was the face of a man, and the face of a lion on the right side of all the four: and the face of an ox, on the left side of all the four: and the face of an eagle over all the four.’
Apart from a content that's very different from most passages in Genesis, we have signalling that a vision was going on: "I was in the spirit," "[t]he word of the Lord came to ... and the hand of the Lord was there upon him. [4] And I saw."
Now read Genesis 5:
‘This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God. [2] He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. [3] And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot a son to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. [4] And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred years: and he begot sons and daughters. [5] And all the time that Adam lived came to nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
[6] Seth also lived a hundred and five years, and begot Enos. [7] And Seth lived after he begot Enos, eight hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters. [8] And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died. [9] And Enos lived ninety years, and begot Cainan. [10] After whose birth he lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and begot sons and daughters.
[11] And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years, and he died.’
Apart from the extraordinary lifespans, and an introitus making the first of the men in this lineage the first man created, it reads like a fairly humdrum genealogy like shepherders all over the world like to rehearse about their families, while tending the sheep.
Even Joseph Smith did not try to pass off I Nephi as a series of visions, he preferred to describe a supernatural event in which he lays hands on "golden plates" with a text that ultimately would (if genuine) have been written the normal way, but the one extra supernatural touch being that Joseph Smith claimed supernatural understanding of the language in the golden plate text.
No, hypothesis #2 does not seem like it. But since Henke makes a point of parallelling hypothesis #2 to Joseph Smith, I make a point of pointing out, again and again, Joseph Smith couldn't and probably didn't try to convince his hearers the content of Book of Mormon was history they already knew, he just convinced them it was "in fact history" but transmitted to them in a very unhistoric way, very unlike how Washington and Lafayette were transmitted to Abraham Lincoln. If this were how Genesis was written, how come this extraordinary fact was not preserved?”
Yet, Lundahl (2022n) believes that a 19th century nun had visions that constructed an entire biography for St. Philomena, which included people, various events, her supposed status as a Greek princess and even giving the saint’s birth date as January 10. If Mr. Lundahl did not know anything about the 19th century origin of St. Philomena and simply read her biography, how could he distinguish it from a supposed historical account passed down by humans? If the entire detailed story of St. Philomena could be based on “visions”, why not the entire story of Adam or Moses?
Before the opposing sides of Hypotheses #1 and #2 can actually debate the validity of their hypothesis over their opponent’s, they must agree on a definition of a biblical vision. So, would God simply speaking to Moses count as a “vision”? Most would probably say no. They would want some sort of a visual component, like a burning bush, or a dream involving a communication from God before it could be classified as a “vision.” So, both sides would have to look at the biblical Hebrew and come to some resolution on this.
Even if advocates of Hypothesis #2 admit that a communication from God would need to have a visual component before it could be called a vision, they could still argue that every word in Genesis could have been orally transmitted by God to Moses and Moses, as a secretary, perfectly recorded every word God said. That is, advocates of Hypothesis #2 would argue that God could have extensively spoken to Moses to give him all kinds of information on laws, genealogies, conservations between God and angels and other information without having a single human-written document being involved.
Although both conservative Christians and Orthodox Jews know that Genesis 1:1-2:14 must have come from God, notice that there is no verse in Genesis 1:1-2:14 indicating that Moses “was in the spirit” or that he had a dream or vision when he saw the creation. Moses or any other author isn’t even mentioned anywhere in Genesis. The context by itself indicates that either Genesis 1:1-2:14 is a work of fiction or a revelation from God. There are also plenty of other verses in Genesis, where there were no human witnesses and the information must have come from God or an angel according to both conservative Christians and Orthodox Jews. For example, how did Moses know about the conversation between God and the angels in Genesis 11:6-7 unless God or one of his angels told someone? Advocates of Hypothesis #1 have to arbitrarily divide up Genesis into sections obtained by visions/God speaking and other sections originating from unsubstantiated, fallible and human-transmitted records. Advocates of Hypothesis #2 would argue that supporters of Hypothesis #1 are no different than those that divided up Genesis into J, E, and P sources. Supporters of Hypothesis #1 simply have no evidence whatsoever that Moses had any human written or oral sources for Genesis.
Advocates of Hypothesis #2 could also argue that God could have given Moses the information in Genesis 5 just like the ghost of St. Philomena gave her birth date to a 19th century nun without any of the information being passed down through the centuries by fallible-human hands. Of course, secularists would argue that Hypothesis #2 has no more evidence than Hypothesis #1. If Mr. Lundahl had been using the Method of the Multiple Working Hypotheses as he should have been doing (Strahler 1999, pp. 19-20; Henke 2022eu), he would have no reason to favor Hypothesis #1 over #2. To be exact, he would be favoring Hypotheses #3 and #4.
Anyone can make up fictitious genealogies and birth dates. Joseph Smith Jr. pulled a genealogy out of the ether in Ether 1:6-32. A 19th century nun made up the entire life story for St. Philomena and the ancient Sumerians produced their own genealogies with unbelievable ages.
Reference:
Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: 2nd ed., Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 552 pp.