Visions in Genesis: Mr. Lundahl’s Hypothesis #1 Is No More Valid Than Hypothesis #2 in Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b)
Kevin R. Henke
December 3, 2022
Among my discussions in Henke (2022bw), I argued that Genesis contains more “visionary” and “prophetic” texts than what Mr. Lundahl is willing to admit because of his adherence to Hypothesis #1 instead of #2 in Henke (2022a) and Henke (2022b):
“As I discussed in Henke (2022bL), the Mormons actually boast that the Book of Mormon was not “transmitted as history in a normal way”, but instead they think it was written, preserved, transmitted and translated in a “divinely guided” and supernatural way that is far superior to the Bible:
“Even though the Mormons readily admit that Joseph Smith Jr. “miraculously” translated the Book of Mormon into English, they would argue that the original gold plates were an inerrant “history” finished by Moroni around the 5th century AD. The plates were then carefully preserved in the ground from the 5th to the 19th century until Joseph Smith Jr. recovered them. The Mormons would further argue that the “first known audience” of the Book of Mormon were the Jews that wrote the “history” on the golden plates and not the 19th century Americans. Joseph Smith Jr. merely found and translated this “history.” Supposedly, several eyewitnesses actually saw the original plates of the Book of Mormon that Moroni and others had written (Hinckley 1979). While Joseph Smith Jr. supposedly was able to translate the Book of Mormon into English through visions produced by magic seer stones, the Mormons would also point out that the books of the Bible also have a “miraculous order.” They would argue that the Holy Spirit “miraculously translated” Jesus’ Aramaic into perfect Greek for the original Gospels and that the writing of the Bible books often involved visions and not historical accounts, such as in Ezekiel and Revelation. Mormons would also claim that they have copies of Joseph Smith Jr.’s first English edition of the Book of Mormon. This is in contrast to the potentially corrupted copies of copies of copies … of Old and New Testament books dating centuries to perhaps even more than 1,000 years after the originals. Mormons then conclude that the chain of custody (Moroni directly to Joseph Smith Jr. and then directly to the public) and reliability of the Book of Mormon are far superior to what Christians and Jews could claim for the Bible. Although Mr. Lundahl and I recognize that the Book of Mormon is a fraudulent document and that Joseph Smith Jr.’s claims about its origin have no merit whatsoever, where’s Mr. Lundahl’s evidence that any book of the Bible is inerrant and totally trustworthy when all of the originals have been lost? Where’s Mr. Lundahl’s archeological and other evidence that Moses actually existed, wrote the Pentateuch and that our Hebrew manuscripts are exact copies of the originals when Tov (2001) and archeology books like Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) say otherwise? Because Joseph Smith Jr. and the Book of Mormon have deceived millions of people, why couldn’t the Bible?” [emphasis in original]
Nevertheless, conservative Christians claim that the Bible was not “transmitted as history in a normal way” either. Even the sections that appear “transmitted as history in a normal way” are identified as the “inerrant word of God” by conservative Christians, and by Orthodox Jews for the Old Testament. Normally, people don’t identify a history book as “divinely inspired.” There’s also a lot of baseless visions and “supernaturally recovered history” in the Bible. By accepting Hypothesis #1 on Genesis 3, Lundahl (2022d) readily admits that Moses had to have received visions from God in order to write the “history” of Genesis 1:1-2:14. There are other examples in the Old Testament where Hypothesis #1 requires that God or angels had to tell Moses about various events because supposedly no human eyewitnesses were present (e.g., Genesis 11:6-7 as Lundahl (2022L) happens to mention, but also Genesis 18:17-21 and others; also see Henke 2022ew). Under Hypothesis #1, Moses could not have relied on human-produced documents alone to write Genesis 2:15-50:26. He would have had to receive at least some communication from God or angels through visions or at least audibly. Of course, Hypotheses #3 and #4 identify Genesis as fiction and not revelation or history.
So, both the Book of Mormon and the Bible groundlessly rely on visions, words from God and other supernatural origins. Lundahl (2022L) cannot take the Bible as a whole, divorce it from its claims of magical visions and inspiration, try to pass it off as inerrant history and then claim that it’s totally unlike the Book of Mormon. Both books are heavily based on groundless magic.
Joseph Smith Jr. is well known for his false prophecies and the Book of Mormon is full of scientific and other errors (e.g., Fitzgerald 2013). I also stated the following in Henke (2022bv), which illustrates that Revelation, Ezekiel and other Bible books also contain demonstrable false prophecies that believers either ignore or improperly dismiss:
“Skeptics point out the false prophecies about Jesus’ “soon” Second Coming in Revelation 1:1-3, 3:10-11, 22:6-7, 22:10, 22:12, and 22:20 (Price 2007; 2018, pp. 214-259) and the false prophecies about Tyre and Egypt in Ezekie1 (Bowen 2021). Yet, believers continue to make up excuses or ignore these blatant failures. Sadly, too many people believe what they want to believe despite the evidence. So, they make up pitiful excuses to convince themselves and others that Kenneth Copeland and the Bible writers were not false prophets. Lundahl (2022L) fails to recognize this.”
So, both the Mormons and conservative Christians either ignore or explain away the numerous baseless “histories” and false “prophecies” in their religions.” [my emphasis in bold and italics]
In Henke (2022md), I previously addressed Mr. Lundahl’s (2022z) comments on some of my statements in the above quoted section of Henke (2022bw). Lundahl (2022z) then gives additional replies to my bolded and italicized statements about Hypotheses #1 and #2:
“Henke (2022bw) states: ‘There’s also a lot of baseless visions and “supernaturally recovered history” in the Bible. By accepting Hypothesis #1 on Genesis 3, Lundahl (2022d) readily admits that Moses had to have received visions from God in order to write the “history” of Genesis 1:1-2:14.’
Lundahl (2022z): ‘Actually, the part needing prophetic epistemology ends at Genesis 2:6. From his being formed, Adam could watch the rest happen, obviously trusting God (with Whom he conversed) for how Eve was formed in verses 21 and first part of 22.’
Genesis 1:28 would also have been within the observation of both Adam and Eve, therefore in the Genesis 2 story as Moses received it. And displaced into his own vision of the 6 days.
Henke (2022bw) continues: ‘There are other examples in the Old Testament where Hypothesis #1 requires that God or angels had to tell Moses about various events because supposedly no human eyewitnesses were present (e.g., Genesis 11:6-7 as Lundahl (2022L) happens to mention, but also Genesis 18:17-21 and others; also see Henke 2022ew).’
Lundahl (2022z): ‘Genesis 11:6-7 are two verses.
Genesis 18:17-21 involves what the Lord said to Abraham’”
I won’t quibble about where Mr. Lundahl thinks that the “prophetic epistemology” ends in Genesis 2. There’s no evidence that any of the events in Genesis 2 ever happened anyway. However, the importance of Genesis 11:6-7 cannot be dismissed as only “two verses.” They tell the reader why God supposedly confused the languages at the Tower of Babel. So, rather than dismissing these two verses, Mr. Lundahl needs to explain, if he can, how “Moses” found out about Genesis 11:6-7 if it wasn’t from a vision, prophecy or some other form of supernatural communication. Too often those that claim that the Bible is the “inspired Word of God” end up belittling or ignoring verses that don’t fit into their religious agenda.
If God is speaking to Abraham in Genesis 18:17-21 as Lundahl (2022z) claims, why does he refer to Abraham in the third person by using his name and the pronouns “he” and “him” rather than using “you”? Some English versions of Genesis 18:17-21 indicate that God was speaking to himself. This interpretation of the story makes more sense. Either God later told someone about his thoughts in Genesis 11:6-7 or a human made up the verses. The verses did not come from Abraham because they were not addressed to him. Anyway, Mr. Lundahl has no evidence that Hypothesis #1 is any better than Hypothesis #2, and both the natural hypotheses #3 and #4 better explain Genesis than either #1 or #2 (Henke 2022b; Henke 2022dL; Henke 2022ej). That is, Genesis is just a made-up story rather than a “history” involving a lot of far-fetched events.
References
Bowen, J. 2021. The Atheist Handbook to the Old Testament: Volume One: Digital Hammurabi Press, Mechanicsville, Maryland, USA, 428pp.
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.
Fitzgerald, D. 2013. The Complete Heretic’s Guide to Western Religion Book One: The Mormons, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 336 pp.
Hinckley, G.B. 1979. Truth Restored: Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 156pp.
Price, R.M. 2007. The Paperback Apocalypse: How the Christian Church Was Left Behind: Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York, USA, 390pp.
Price, R.M. 2018. Holy Fable III: The Epistles and the Apocalypse Undistorted by Faith: Mindvendor, 259pp.
Tov, E. 2001. Textural Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd revised ed., Fortress Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 456pp.