HALF-BAKED

(PART III)

A RESPONSE TO “THE ORIGIN OF PRESENT-DAY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS AS PRESENTED BY THE AUTHORS OF THE URANTIA BOOK”

by Lee Cook

Savage Nation

For long ages from the beginning of the evolution of religion the savage believed that numerous objects, such as snakes, birds, stones, fruit, and animals [such as swine] were inhabited by spirits. Primitive man did not necessarily worship the object: he worshiped and reverenced the spirit that dwelt in the object.

The first object to be worshiped by evolving man was a stone. All ancient clans and tribes had their sacred stones. The Israelites long perpetuated their belief that stone is sacred: “And this stone which I have set up as a pillar shall be God’s house.” [Genesis 28:22] They truly believed that the spirit of their god dwelt in such stone altars. Jacob slept on a stone because he venerated it; he even anointed it. Rachel concealed a number of sacred stones in her tent. The serpent was revered in Palestine by the Jews who considered it to be the mouthpiece of evil spirits. The Hebrews worshiped serpents down to the days of King Hezekiah. Eating the apple was forbidden as it was believed to be inhabited by a spirit. As religion began to play a larger part in the evolution of countless taboos, the article resting under ban was regarded as unclean, subsequently as unholy. The records of the Hebrews are full of the mention of things clean and unclean, holy and unholy. The Jewish belief that pork is unclean and thereby prohibited as food is one example. [Papers 85, 88, 89]

Papers 85 through 92 of The UB share a common theme, in that the Hebrew religion, as it is reflected in the Old Testament, derives from purely human intellect that evolved from primitive thought, and is not considered to be a revelation from God. Paper 85 (“The Origins of Worship”) begins the procession of the progressive order of primitive religion which “had a biologic origin, a natural evolutionary development, aside from moral associations and apart from all spiritual influences” (85:0.1). “Man creates his primitive religions,” the author of Paper 85 asserts, “out of his fears and by means of his illusions” (ibid.). But as this procession unfolds, we come to the realization that the legitimate “spiritual influences” to which the UB author refers are none other than those attributable to the pantheon described in The UB, while the accounts in the Old Testament are mere reflections of the primitive inclinations of their human authors. Each section of Paper 85 presents a successive order of “evolved” religion, replete with caricatures of Old Testament heroes as demonstrations thereto.

Rock Collection

With the first section of Paper 85, subtitled “Worship of Stones and Hills,” we get that “Jacob slept on a stone because he venerated it; he even anointed it” (85:1.1; cf. Gen. 28:10-22), while “Rachel concealed a number of sacred stones in her tent” (ibid.; cf. Gen. 31:19, 32-35). But let us examine these “examples” of “stone worship” a little more closely.

Contrary to the Brilliant Evening Star’s not-so-brilliant assertion, Jacob did not sleep on a stone because he venerated it. The appurtenant Old Testament verse reads:

“So he [Jacob] came to a certain place and stayed there all night, because the sun had set. And he took one of the stones of that place and put it at his head, and he lay down in that place to sleep.” (Gen. 28:11)

As the record clearly indicates, it was just an ordinary rock that Jacob picked at random in an unassuming place he had stopped at for the night. There was nothing of religious significance about this particular rock to Jacob at the time. It was, however, the rock upon which Jacob dreamed his well-known “ladder to heaven” dream, on which angels were seen ascending and descending. As a result of the dream, in which God spoke to Jacob, he did anoint the stone with oil (v. 18) and set it as a pillar. It was at this pillar that Jacob had made a vow of devotion to God (v. 20-22). But this is not at all to be construed as stone worship, which in the Bible is referred to as a form of idol worship. Idolatry (Greek eidolon, “image”; latreia, “worship”) is the worship of a material image that is held to be the abode of a superhuman personality.[1] The concept of idolatry was first articulated during the clash of ancient Hebrew monotheism with the pagan cults of surrounding peoples. The pillar that Jacob had set up was, in effect, a shrine devoted to God, not an inanimate object that Jacob worshiped as though it were the embodiment of God.

Rachel’s story is a bit different. In verse 19 of Genesis chapter 31, we read that she had stolen her father’s “household gods,” which were presumably stone idols. It is clear in Genesis that Laban, her father, was a pagan and hence would have been prone to worshiping idols. In verses 32 through 35, Rachel had hidden the idols from her father as he searched her tent, and had even deceived her father in such a way that he would not find them. The text does not explicitly indicate that Rachel had worshiped the idols herself, but had only stolen and hidden them from discovery. However, it could be inferred that she had stolen the idols so that she could continue with the pagan practices with which she was familiar under her father’s tutelage. Other verses (e.g., Gen. 35:2) suggest that Rachel and others in Jacob’s camp were not quite yet free of their pagan background. Jacob, however, was apparently unaware of the entire incident between Rachel and her father (v. 32). To infer, then, from this passage that the Hebrew patriarch Jacob had approved of Rachel’s actions or the gods she worshiped would be unwarranted.

Snakehandlers

In the section of Paper 85 entitled “The Worship of Animals,” it is imputed that the Hebrews “worshiped serpents down to the days of King Hezekiah . . .” (85:3.3). And in all fairness this assessment, in and of itself, is valid. However, the inference that this phenomenon is evidence of a step in the evolutionary development of religious practices among the Israelites is false. In Numbers 21:8, while the Israelites were roaming the desert after the Exodus from Egypt, Moses (as per God’s instruction) had erected a bronze snake atop a pole as a visual antidote to the plague of snakes God sent on His people in retribution for their impatience. And in Second Kings 18:4, the newly-crowned King Hezekiah of Judah (ca. 715 B.C.) destroyed the bronze snake, as well as other relics and sites, because his subjects had been abusing them as objects of idolatrous worship. These practices had apparently begun shortly after Moses had erected the bronze snake, and continued until Hezekiah’s day (cf. 1Kings 14:23; 15:14; 22:43; 2 Kings 12:3; 14:4; 15:4,35; 16:4). However, the Hebrew records also clearly delineate that God held such practices in contempt. For instance, we read in the biblical record that King Ahaz “did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord his God, as his father David had done” (2Kings 16:2). Likewise, we read that the Israelites “did evil in the sight of the Lord” (1Kings 14:22). Other references pertaining to either the reigning king or his subjects advocating the practice of idolatry “in the high places” (e.g., where the bronze snake had been erected) consistently imply that such practices were not in conformance with God’s will. Moreover, these practices were considered by God to be regressive in nature, and not part of a supposed evolutionary scheme (cf. 1Kings 14:24; 2Kings 16:1-4).

Charmed, I’m Sure

Paper 88 discusses fetishes, charms, and magic. Belief in fetishes is appropriately defined by the celestial author as “the concept of a spirit’s entering into an inanimate object, an animal, or a human being” (88:0.1). As we shall soon see, this definition is key.

Not surprisingly, the “Brilliant Evening Star” gives much of the credit for the evolution of the belief in fetishes to the Hebrews, beginning with this declaration: “The serpent was revered in Palestine, especially by the Phoenicians, who, along with the Jews, considered it to be the mouthpiece of evil spirits” (88:1.5). This assertion is, of course, in reference to the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1-5), who tempted Eve into eating of the forbidden fruit. But other accounts in the Old Testament reveal just how delicately the subject of snakes ought to be handled, even if by celestial voices. Recall that, as Moses was conversing with God on Mount Horeb, He had turned Moses’ staff into a serpent and back into a staff again (Exod. 4:1-4). A similar event took place in Pharaoh’s palace, when God turned Aaron’s staff into a serpent (Exod. 7:8-10). Whether or not the reader believes that these accounts of miraculous events are true, the point remains that in neither case was the serpent represented as a “mouthpiece of evil spirits,” but instead was a demonstration of God’s presence and omnipotence. And then there is the time that God instructed Moses to manufacture a bronze serpent which, when gazed upon by the Hebrews, served as an antidote to the plague of poisonous serpents (Num. 21:4-9). Again, evil words were not spoken by the symbolic serpent; to the contrary, the serpent was in this case a symbol of God’s mercy. What are these accounts doing in the oldest books of the Old Testament, alongside the Genesis account of the serpent in the Garden, if the Hebrews believed exclusively that serpents were “the mouthpiece of evil spirits”?

Apple of My Eye

Ms. Cook’s assertion that “Eating the apple was forbidden as it was believed to be inhabited by a spirit” is obviously directed toward the scene in the Garden of Eden, when Eve was persuaded by the serpent to eat of the fruit of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:17) despite a directive from God not to do so. The implication is that this biblical story of Adam and Eve’s fall from grace is based on a variant of a primitive myth. To be sure, two entries can be found in The UB regarding apples and primitive religious beliefs. The first passage (88:1.3) indicates that it was at one time believed that the apple was a fetish because it was indwelt by some sort of nature spirit and was taboo as food. The second passage, and probably the more applicable passage if one were to implicate the Genesis account as a throwback from primitive myth, reads as follows:

“From magic and ghosts, religion evolved through spirits and fetishes to taboos. Every primitive tribe had its tree of forbidden fruit, literally the apple but figuratively consisting of a thousand branches hanging heavy with all sorts of taboos. And the forbidden tree always said, ‘Thou shalt not.’” (89:2.1)

The UB contends that the primitive concept of the fetish had evolved into the taboo, and that the transgression of a given taboo is what initially was considered a sin. By this time, the eating of an apple had no connection with its inhabitation by a spirit, but was instead considered a forbidden act by whatever spirits a particular tribe worshiped.

Be that as it may, The UB account is itself at odds with both logic and the biblical account. First off, the biblical account does not indicate that the “forbidden tree” spoke the command not to eat of its fruit. Such notions as talking trees truly belong in the realm of fantasy, the enchanted forest of The Wizard of Oz and Treebeard of The Lord of the Rings being cases in point. Secondly, we know that the Genesis account of the Fall of Man likely did not involve an apple, as some would hold. The text simply states that Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The type of fruit to which the account refers is not explicitly stated, so it could very well have been some sort of fruit that did not exist anywhere else but on that particular tree. This would certainly make sense in view of the text, which states that God “made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” and that, in addition to these, there were the “tree of life” and the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:9) in the Garden. So in addition to every type of edible fruit-bearing tree (including apples), the Garden contained two other trees of unspecified variety—the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge. Later in the text, we hear God declare to Adam: “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die . . .” (Gen. 2:16-17).

Now, let’s think a minute about the validity of this notion that the Genesis account is borrowed from an ancient taboo regarding the eating of “forbidden fruit.” We see from the Genesis account that the “forbidden fruit” was something other than every other edible type of fruit. The UB account informs us that the primitive tribes’ favorite forbidden fruit was the apple, but we can imagine various tribes ascribing taboo to a wide array of fruits, depending upon the availability of varieties indigenous to their ecologic surroundings. One tribe might prohibit the pear, while another would outlaw the orange. It would be nonsensical to suggest that the reason we humans are all sinners in the eyes of God is that we eat apples (or peaches, or pomegranates, or . . .), since it is reasonable to assume that there were apples (etc.) in the Garden of Eden, and that God did not prohibit Adam and Eve from eating them. The point to be made here is that any fruit to which primitive minds may have attributed the naughty nectar would have to be a variety with which the folks were familiar. It would make no sense for a given tribe to forbid a fruit that they could not themselves identify! If the fruit actually did not exist, then there would be no need to forbid its ingestion. If it did exist, but nobody had ever seen it, then it would be a fruitless endeavor (gotcha!) to enforce the taboo. And if the forbidden fruit was of a known variety, then sooner or later, as each tribe would inevitably share their folklore with other tribes, the subject of forbidden fruit would come up, and there they would be, comparing apples with oranges, refuting one another on the deadliness of their chosen fruit! The so-called taboo would therefore not have survived the ages, each variety having withered off the branch as a result of its own self-refuting rottenness. The connection that The UB is attempting to make regarding the Genesis account and a borrowed ancient taboo regarding the eating of a specific type of fruit is therefore unfounded and illogical.

And while we are on the subject of self-refutation, The UB staunchly declares that while there was no literal tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden, there was, in fact, a tree of life:

“The ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ may be a figure of speech, a symbolic designation covering a multitude of human experiences, but the ‘tree of life’ was not a myth; it was real and for a long time was present on Urantia.” (73:6.3)

The UB authors also openly admit that their Adam and Eve partook of the “tree of life” in order to sustain their immortality (74:6.4; 75:7.6) and, having been removed from the Garden of Eden by circumventing circumstances (not having been ejected therefrom by God, as the Genesis account proclaims), without its nourishment the two eventually fell victim to that bane of mortality known as physical death (76:5). So the obvious conundrum here is that while one myth is rejected, another is affirmed. If indeed there were two trees of distinction in the biblical account of the Garden, but only one is backed up by a historical prototype, how is it that mankind managed to maintain one (the tree of life) through legend and oral account, but invented the other (the tree of knowledge) as a symbolic “figure of speech” to represent a “multitude of human experiences”? Both trees represent events that took place in the same place and time, according to the biblical account; yet only one is rooted in history while the other, we are told to believe, is supposedly a fabricated myth. This misalignment strains the credulity of The UB account thereof.

As an aside, it seems as though the UB authors are the ones who harbor an obsession with the apple fetish, as their vaunted effort to mythologize the biblical account of the “forbidden fruit” turns into sour grapes:

“When plants and fruits became fetishes, they were taboo as food. The apple was among the first to fall into this category; it was never eaten by the Levantine peoples.” (88:1.3)

Whatever source this historic note was derived from, it certainly did not originate with the Levantine authors of the Old Testament. Apples are mentioned in a positive, even nourishing, light in all occasions throughout the Old Testament (Deut. 32:10; Psalm 17:8; Prov. 7:2; 25:11; Song 2:3,5; 7:8; 8:5; Lam. 2:18; Joel 1:12; Zec.8), including this delicious tidbit: “Sustain me with cakes of raisins, refresh me with apples, for I am lovesick” (Song 2:5). Many of these Levantine verses refer to the “apple of my eye,” a catchphrase that is still used to this day to depict a desirable object worthy of pursuit, not a religious relic to abstain from. Once again, the UB authors have it backwards.

Copycat

The intent is made clear in Papers 85 and following that the UB authors consider Hebrew theology to be one of those man-evolved religions, replete with its fabricated gods and misconceptions. In this regard, the concepts presented in these papers read as if they were gleaned straight out of a book written by one who holds to a natural evolution of religious concepts, devoid of revelations from God. It should come to nobody’s surprise, then, that this is precisely the case, as documented by none other than Urantian apologist Matthew Block. Since 1992, Mr. Block has been busily discovering the myriad cases of suspected plagiarisms contained in the so-called fifth epochal revelation. I defer to Martin Gardner’s Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery for elaboration:

“Of all the books on his 1993 list, Block thinks that the one ‘most extensively used’ by UB authors was F. Washburn Hopkins’ Origin and Evolution of Religion (Yale University Press, 1923). All of Paper 85, he correctly states, ‘is taken directly from the first eight chapters of the book, each section in the paper corresponding almost exactly to a chapter in the book.’ Material from Hopkins is also incorporated in Papers 86 through 90, and in Paper 92. ‘The preamble and section 1 of Paper 104,’ Block writes, ‘are taken directly from Hopkins’ chapters on “The Triad’, “The Hindu Trinity”, “The Buddhistic Trinity’ and “The Christian Trinity”.’ The UB’s constant stress on the fact that religions evolve is the central concept of Hopkins’ book.”[2]

Gardner then comparatively quotes a handful of the literally hundreds of examples provided by Block, which I will spare the reader. Ample documentation of these plagiarisms already exists both in Gardner’s book and in Matthew Block’s works.[3] Block contends that these plagiarism discoveries provide ample proof that the “celestial” authors utilized human sources when appropriate, and all the while “improved” upon them as demonstration of their vast superior intellect. Gardner, on the other hand, holds to a less forgiving position, and continues his observations thus:

“It should be obvious to anyone that the Brilliant Evening Star was someone who had Hopkins’ book before him or her, and simply summarized, often with identical words and phrases, the first eight chapters of Hopkins’ work. There is scarcely a passage in Paper 85 that is not derived from Hopkins. If the Evening Star was truly a celestial being, surely he or she could have done better than just condense and reword the writings of a Yale University professor of Sanskrit and comparative philology! Would it not have been more honest if the not-so-Brilliant Evening Star had simply advised Urantians to buy and read Hopkins’ book, rather than to take credit for an erudition he or she did not possess? Was it fair to Hopkins not to name him as the source?”[4]

Gardner also provides a vital clue as to the possibility that the true author of The UB was human:

“In view of the UB’s heavy indebtedness to Hopkins it is not surprising that [William] Sadler, at the close of his chapter “Religious Therapy,” in Theory and Practice of Psychiatry [1936], lists Hopkins’ book as a major reference.”[5]

Update: Matthew Block is now contending that a six-volume book series entitled The Science of Society, authored by William Sumner and Albert Keller (1927), is the primary source for Paper 88.[6] A comparison between this candidate source and Hopkins’ Origin and Evolution of Religion for Papers 85 through 92 is beyond the scope of this treatise, and will require further analysis contingent upon Mr. Block’s assessment thereof.

If I Could Talk to the Animals

Talking snakes and asses. When the Hebrews rewrote their history during the Babylonian captivity, they included among their stories a miraculous talking serpent who beguiled Eve into eating the apple, the forbidden fruit. The Lord God, talking to the serpent, decreed “upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” In addition to the talking serpent, there is the account of Balaam’s struggle with his talking ass, who, when confronted by an angel of the Lord, refused to go forward: “And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?” Then follows the conversation between the ass, Balaam, and the angel of the Lord. [Genesis 3:1-19] [Numbers 22:21-34]

Ms. Cook’s rendering of Hebrew mythology is not quite in alignment with that of The UB. Nowhere does The UB state or infer that the Hebrews invented “a miraculous talking serpent” who “beguiled Eve into eating the apple, the forbidden fruit” during the Babylonian captivity. Neither does The UB quote or discuss Genesis 3:14, regarding God’s curse upon the serpent, as Ms. Cook does above. Nor does The UB at any time discuss the account of Balaam’s talking ass found in Numbers 22, or the veneration of talking animals of any kind, for that matter (cf. 85:3). Such ruminations add nothing to the discussion at hand, but rather confound Ms. Cook’s position with baseless assertions.

In fact, according to The UB account, it was a local native tribal chief named Serapatatia who convinced the extraterrestrial Eve to commit adultery with another native named Cano and produce a hybrid child in order to accelerate the plan for the genetic advancement of the already existent human race (75:3). Serapatatia, in turn, had been an unwitting pawn to Caligastia, the deposed Planetary Prince (another extraterrestrial who was invisible to the natives and whom the Bible “mistakenly” identifies as “the devil”) who had plotted to foil Adam and Eve’s mission on planet Urantia. How this “true account” of events in the Garden was converted into a talking snake whispering into the ear of Eve, one of the first two humans to eat of the forbidden fruit, is not accounted for in The UB, and understandably so, for it defies any sense of credence.

While we are on the subject of The UB’s “true account” of the Garden of Eden, let us examine just one glaring defect therein. According to The UB Adam, sensing that there was trouble brewing in Eden, had confronted Eve in the Garden, whereupon Eve told him all the sordid details of the unsanctioned copulation. And as the alien couple were communing in the Garden, “Solonia” herself, the “voice in the garden” (75:4.2; cf. Gen. 3:10) and alleged author of Papers 73 through 76 (which comprises The UB account of Adam and Eve), rebuked them for breaking the oath they swore earlier not to stray. Now, we can see where “Solonia” is going here with her biblical word play—the “voice in the garden” is none other than the Lord God, according to Genesis 3:10. Of course, “Solonia” has come prepared with a solution to this obvious contrast: that the later revisionists of the Genesis account had attributed all unusual circumstances to divine intervention, rather than to the key characters we see portrayed in The UB. In the biblical version of the Garden of Eden, God is physically present, actively engaging in conversations with Adam and Eve, and even “walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Gen. 3:8). But because the Universal Father of The UB is a deistic god who never leaves his assigned abode on Paradise, it has become incumbent upon the deliverers of the fifth epochal revelation to set the record straight and, in doing so, have a seraphic understudy stand in as the voice in the garden. This way, the “incomprehensibility” of the “mythic notion” that God was actually physically present in the Garden can be done away with. To give authorship of the papers explaining Eden to this same celestial voice is a nice touch and might even work, if it can engage the reader’s interest away from its obvious intentions.

And this “explanation” may seem plausible at first, but further scrutiny reveals a logical inconsistency with “Solonia’s” version of the “truth.” Apparently “Solonia,” the “voice in the Garden,” had reproved both Eve and Adam for a breach of sexual etiquette that had so far only been committed by Eve (75:4.2). It seems unfair of “Solonia” to have chided Adam for an act that he himself had not yet committed, nor even contemplated until later. Perhaps this sort of shortsightedness is what the Gods get for allowing “angels” to do their historic revisionism for them!

Whale of a Tale

Jonah and the great fish. Jesus certainly knew that the story of Jonah, supposedly in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights, was exactly that--a story. However, while talking with a young man named Gadiah at Joppa who questioned the accuracy of the story, Jesus said nothing that would suddenly destroy the foundations of Gadiah’s present motivation for practical living. [Book of Jonah] [130:1]

The so-called “Discourse on Jonah” at Joppa (130:1) is a revealing example of how the attempt fails to justify the UB author’s position by weaving it into an unsubstantiated “historic” account. The question posed by the character Gadiah to “Jesus” of The UB is this: “But do you suppose the big fish really did swallow Jonah?” (130:1.2). “Jesus” of The UB, supposedly in one of his “perceptive” moments, began answering Gadiah as follows: “My friend, we are all Jonahs with lives to live in accordance with the will of God, and at all times when we seek to escape the present duty of living by running away to far-off enticements, we thereby put ourselves in the immediate control of those influences which are not directed by the powers of truth and the forces of righteousness” (ibid.). Now, there’s a mouthful! The “Jesus” of The UB continues his long-winded response, rife with analogies such as “whales of selfishness” and the like. In other words, “Jesus” of The UB, in all his effort to avoid destroying “the foundations of Gadiah’s present motivation for practical living,” has in fact provided a direct answer to Gadiah’s question in the negative! The answer to Gadiah’s question is that the big fish really did not swallow Jonah, and that the story should be taken only as an allegory. We see confirmation that this is the position held by “Jesus” of The UB in Paper 159, in which he supposedly reveals to the apostle Nathaniel that the Old Testament is not the inspired Word of God (159:4).

But we also see that “Jesus” of The UB is essentially wasting his breath on Gadiah, because Gadiah had already held to the allegorical interpretation of the Book of Jonah: “Jesus perceived that this young man’s life had been tremendously influenced by this tradition [the story of Jonah], and that its contemplation had impressed upon him the folly of trying to run away from duty . . .” (ibid.; emphasis added). If “Jesus” of The UB was merely trying to impress upon Gadiah that one should hold to the allegorical interpretation of the Book of Jonah, then there would have been no need to avoid destroying Gadiah’s motivation for practical living since Gadiah had already held to said interpretation and was already living accordingly. If, on the other hand, “Jesus” of The UB was trying to avoid shaking Gadiah’s faith by breaking it gently to Gadiah that the story of Jonah was just a big “fish tale,” then “Jesus” failed miserably to do so with the answer he provided. Because this account does not satisfy either criterion, it is easy to see why this entire exercise is in reality a veiled attempt to impress upon the reader the “historical reliability” that the “Jesus” of The UB is not one who takes to the divine inspiration of the Old Testament.

We know from reading Scripture that Jesus of the Bible holds to the opposite view regarding the historical reliability of the Book of Jonah than that of His imposter. The real Jesus referred the scribes and Pharisees to the “sign of the prophet Jonah” to foretell of his own death and resurrection when they asked for a sign (Matt. 12:38-41). Jesus later rebuked the Pharisees and the Sadducees with the same sign (Matt. 16:4). Jesus also confirmed Jonah as a historical person (Luke 11:29-30). Jesus even affirmed Jonah in the lineage of Simon Peter (Matt. 16:17). Not surprisingly, all of these references to Jonah spoken by Jesus have been unmeritoriously excised from The UB’s account of the life of “Jesus.” If Jesus really did not hold to the historical reality of Jonah’s plight with the big fish, he certainly would not have used the story to foretell of the reality of His own death and resurrection.

While we are on the subject of fishy stories, a strange feature can be found in The UB’s account of the “Discourse on Jonah.” It was this same Gadiah, according to The UB, who later became a believer in Jesus of Nazareth after hearing Peter preach, who influenced one Simon the tanner to become a Christian, and who at one time “held a memorable argument with Peter one evening at the home of Dorcas” (131:1.3). An account of Peter raising a woman named Dorcas from the dead is found in Acts (9:36-43). The last verse mentions that Peter stayed with a tanner named Simon, but the name Gadiah is nowhere to be found in this account, nor anywhere else in the Bible. Can anybody out there in Urantialand provide the basis of this account?

Rhinestone and Tickle

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Another fictitious story relates to the natural destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah: As Lot and his wife were fleeing, “his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.” [Genesis 19:24-26]

Once again, Ms. Cook is stepping beyond the bounds of UB pontification. Nowhere in The UB, least of all in the account of Lot and Abraham, is Lot’s wife mentioned, much less her fate discussed. Nevertheless, the author of Paper 93 denies that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a supernatural event performed by God, and further infers that anybody who believes such a “myth” is morally and ethically deficient:

“[T]he three celestial beings appeared to [Abraham] on the plains of Mamre. This was an appearance of fact, notwithstanding its association with the subsequently fabricated narratives relating to the natural destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. And these legends of the happenings of those days indicate how retarded were the morals and ethics of even so recent a time.” (93:6.7)

The ad hominem attack notwithstanding, here we find ourselves again being asked to accept one supernatural aspect of a biblical account while at the same time deny its counterpart. The author of Paper 93 does not elaborate on what is meant by the “narratives relating to the natural destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah,” but it is in any case abundantly clear that the celestials did not want to attribute the “abhorrent” concepts of judgment and wrath to the Gods of Paradise Isle or their fellow “agents.” And it is here that we have yet another self-refuting claim. If by “natural destruction” the author means that Sodom and Gomorrah were in fact destroyed by a natural disaster such as an earthquake or volcanic eruption, and that the author of the Genesis account embellished the story with supernatural agencies, it would serve no purpose to admit that the three celestial beings had indeed appeared to Abraham, as mentioned in Genesis Chapter 18. Such admission would lend credence to the biblical account, not refute it. Natural disasters are commonly used by skeptics to explain away miraculous events recorded in the Bible such as the parting of the Red Sea and the plagues of Egypt. If the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah were indeed attributable to a natural disaster, then it would just be a matter of pointing this out, and the Old Testament writer could still be stripped of his claim that angels intervened. If, on the other hand, no natural disaster had occurred at Sodom and Gomorrah whatsoever, that both the event and its supernatural agents who caused the event were inventions, then it would have been more assertive an argument to claim that no destruction thereof took place at all. Such denial would not require the mention of the supernatural agents whatsoever.

Neither are we informed as to why the three celestial beings appeared to Abraham (if not to reiterate God’s promise that Sarah would give birth at an old age), nor what type of being they were. There is a veritable plethora of “celestial beings” from which to choose in the taxonomy of The UB, as we all well know. However, according to Genesis 18:5, the visiting angels would have to exhibit the ability to eat food, unless the celestial author has some way of explaining how this culinary practice got into the account. I might also add that the topic of sodomy (the term sodomy was coined from this biblical account) is not discussed here or anywhere else in the fifth epochal revelation. One might be tempted to use the reference to Abraham’s folly in contending with the Amorite confederation by making it clear that “these backward clans were certainly committing suicide by their foolish practices” (93:6.2; emphasis added), but this passage is most likely referring to their warmongering. Besides, nobody on planet Earth was even aware in the 1930s that sodomy could end up killing those who practice it.

And as was the case for the story of Jonah, contrary to the position held by “Jesus” of The UB, Jesus of the Bible affirms the historical validity of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:11-15; Mark 6:10-11; Luke 10:12; 17:28-29). And once again, these passages are not to be found in The UB’s account of the sayings of Jesus.

Noah’s Houseboat

Noah and the flood. The Biblical Noah, a wine maker in the river settlement of Aram, apparently was of a scientific bent. He kept a written record of the days of the river’s rise from year to year which earned him much ridicule from his neighbors, much to their later sorrow. They refused to abide by his warnings to build wooden houses, boat fashion, and put their animals on board each night. A year came when the annual floods were greatly abetted by unusually heavy rainfalls. The sudden rise of the waters wiped out the entire village; only Noah and his immediate family were saved in their houseboat.

The commentary above is taken almost verbatim from Section 7 of Paper 78 (“The Floods in Mesopotamia”). The section pertains to a period in Mesopotamian history in which spring flooding had supposedly become epidemic as a result of rapid geologic uplift of the surrounding areas, causing human distress all throughout the Euphrates Valley. This flooding activity allegedly piqued at about 5,000 B.C. I cannot do justice to the flavor of this section by attempting to paraphrase, so here it is in its entirety:

“Almost five thousand years later, as the Hebrew priests in Babylonian captivity sought to trace the Jewish people back to Adam, they found great difficulty in piecing the story together; and it occurred to one of them to abandon the effort, to let the whole world drown in its wickedness at the time of Noah’s flood, and thus to be in a better position to trace Abraham right back to one of the three surviving sons of Noah.” (78:7.3)

“The traditions of a time when water covered the whole of the earth’s surface are universal. Many races harbor the story of a world-wide flood some time during past ages. The Biblical story of Noah, the ark, and the flood is an invention of the Hebrew priesthood during the Babylonian captivity. There has never been a universal flood since life was established on Urantia. The only time the surface of the earth was completely covered by water was during those Archeozoic ages before the land had begun to appear.” (78:7.4)

“But Noah really lived; he was a wine maker of Aram, a river settlement near Erech. He kept a written record of the days of the river’s rise from year to year. He brought much ridicule upon himself by going up and down the river valley advocating that all houses be built of wood, boat fashion, and that the family animals be put on board each night as the flood season approached. He would go to the neighboring river settlements every year and warn them that in so many days the floods would come. Finally a year came in which the annual floods were greatly augmented by unusually heavy rainfall so that the sudden rise of the waters wiped out the entire village; only Noah and his immediate family were saved in their houseboat.” (78:7.5)

This whimsical account may have had a bit more credibility during the time that The UB was being drafted, when eager liberals and their highly conjectural scholarship regarding the sources of Old Testament history abounded. But it does not take much effort to expose the logical flaws that exist in the fabric from which this fable was woven. For one thing, the alleged Archangel of Nebadon openly acknowledges that “Many races harbor the story of a world-wide flood some time during past ages” (78:7.4). As has been known since the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many ancient cultures do indeed harbor tales similar to the Flood account found in the biblical Book of Genesis, including those of European and Near Eastern origin. Scholars of ancient languages concur that some of these flood stories, most notably the Gilgamesh epic of Sumerian origin, were written before the Old Testament account, even if we assume a conservative dating of Genesis back to Moses’ time. The UB also infers elsewhere that the writers of the Old Testament borrowed liberally from such accounts as they were the first to have been written. And therein lies the crux of the problem with The UB account. Since the Mesopotamian versions of the Flood were the first to be written, only two scenarios are possible. The first possible scenario is that the Mesopotamian writers were the first to know about Noah’s “houseboat” and augmented the story to incorporate a worldwide flood, which the Old Testament writers later copied from. In this case, we cannot blame the Hebrews for embellishing the story during their Babylonian captivity in order to “let the whole world drown in its wickedness at the time of Noah’s flood, and thus be in a better position to trace Abraham right back to one of the three surviving sons of Noah.” The redaction of history would have already been perpetuated by the Mesopotamians, not the Hebrews, who were merely reporting what was thought by all to be a historically accurate account at the time. The second possible scenario is that a universal flood actually occurred which wiped out all of humanity save one faithful family, and that both the Mesopotamians and the Hebrews were inspired by oral tradition handed down through the ages to write their versions of the same true event. In this case, the story of a local flood that was braved by Noah’s “houseboat” would have been irrelevant, having nowhere near the impact on humanity that was brought on by the universal flood. No doubt the annals of history are full of events in which entire villages were wiped out from a locally catastrophic flood, but which were not of the magnitude required to wipe out the entire human race.

Another problem with the Noah houseboat idea involves a matter of practicality. The UB account indicates that Noah lived near Erech. The existence of the village of Erech (otherwise known as Uruk) has been known since the early twentieth century when German archeologists began excavating the site. The village of Uruk (and presumably Aram, where Noah supposedly lived) was on the banks of the Euphrates River, in that region of Mesopotamia that is now south-central Iraq. Because the river valley was broad and marshy, the nearby availability of trees for the building of large vessels such as “houseboats” was sparse. The villagers would have had to travel great distances to transport and gather enough wood to make their individual “houseboats,” had they heeded Noah’s warning. In the mean time, the villagers would find no reason to go to such extraneous measures for adequate shelter when there was plenty of material readily available nearby for the making of clay bricks with which to make their huts. (Such structures as mud-brick temples and walled settlements are precisely what archaeologists have found at these ancient sites.) The villagers would have had no motivation to build their abodes out of wood in an area that they already knew (without the help of Noah and his “hydrologic journal”) was prone to annual flooding (hence the basis for their fertility gods). Permanent wooden structures built on stilts would perhaps serve the purpose, but this choice would be far too impractical compared to the abundance of clay resources. The building of “houseboats” would certainly not make any sense when one merely needed to move to higher ground when the floods came. Clay huts could easily be rebuilt after the waters receded.

Nor does the notion seem reasonable that the seasonal Mesopotamian floods would pose a substantial threat to the local human inhabitants. These were not the torrential floods that most of us are familiar with in areas of relatively high relief such as in a mountain canyon or desert arroyo, which do pose a potential threat of death to those who are unfortunate enough to get caught in their path. As The UB text reads, it was only after the annual flood having been “augmented by unusually heavy rainfall” that “the sudden rise of the waters wiped out the entire village.” Again, the river valley was broad and flat, such that a “sudden rise” would not occur to a life-threatening degree. Run for your lives, everybody! The river is rising at the alarming rate of one inch per hour! Gag! No, my friends, it is readily apparent that the story of Noah’s houseboat is itself a giant fish tale, concocted by an “Archangel of Nebadon,” no less.

Let us take a closer look at the Gilgamesh Epic, as it is the favored story with which to compare the biblical Flood account. The Epic of Gilgamesh has been of great interest ever since its discovery in the mid-nineteenth century in the ruins of the great library at Nineveh. While many scholars tend to imply that the similarities between the Gilgamesh Epic and the Genesis Flood are indications that the latter was borrowed from the former, others would point out the striking differences between the two that suggest the two were not linked as such. The Epic dates back to possibly the third millennium B.C., amidst the polytheistic mythology associated with the pagan peoples of the time. Utnapishtim, the hero of the Gilgamesh account, was granted immortality after successfully surviving the Flood. The duration of the Gilgamesh deluge was only six days and nights, a shorter time period than the 40 days and nights of the Noachian flood. The Gilgamesh ark landed on Mount Nisir, about 300 miles from Mount Ararat.

Waterworld

Perhaps you will forgive a slight digression at this point while we ask a few pertinent questions about Noah and all those creatures. According to the Biblical version of Noah and the flood, the Lord gave Noah specific instructions for the dimensions of the ark: It was to be 300 cubits long and 30 cubits high. A cubit is about 18 inches. Thus, the ark was supposedly about 450 feet long and about 45 feet high. Did Noah and the members of his family have the tools and expertise to construct a boat with these dimensions? Obviously, Noah did not have the facilities to obtain a male and female of every creature on earth. According to one explanation given in a Biblical footnote, God supernaturally brought them to Noah. Then, according to the story, after the Lord supernaturally placed all the creatures aboard the ark, it rained for forty days and forty nights. Then the waters covered the earth one hundred and fifty days after which the waters were abated. The creators of the story of Noah did not explain how a sufficient amount of food was to be provided on a daily basis to the millions of creatures supposedly aboard the ark. Thousands upon thousands of tons of meat, grain, and other food would be required to keep all those creatures alive. Where did Noah store all that food, and without refrigeration, how did he prevent it from spoiling over a period of more than one hundred ninety days? And after all the creatures were led from the ark, what was there for them to eat? Every living thing on the earth had been destroyed. Did the animals now begin to eat each other so that truly might became right? These stories of Noah and the ark and Moses and the Pharaoh illustrate that few of the tales in the Old Testament can survive a rigorous examination.

Ms. Cook’s “examination” of the Old Testament Flood account is anything but rigorous. But she is at least on the right track in one regard—a worldwide flood interpretation of the Genesis account makes no sense when one begins to crunch the numbers. However, her conclusion that the Genesis Flood account cannot survive a rigorous examination remains unfounded. Note that we must make a distinction between a certain interpretation (i.e., the global flood interpretation) of the Genesis flood account and the account itself. As it turns out, a biblical debate has been raging over the past century as to whether the Genesis Flood account found in Genesis 6-9 denotes a global or regional event. Both biblical inerrancy and scientific credibility are at stake on both sides of the debate. Some Christians have even charged that a person’s belief that the Flood covered the entire planet provides a reliable litmus test of his or her salvation. A superficial reading of the Genesis Flood account, as it has been translated in English, may leave the modern reader with the impression that a global event is being described. But scientific evidence to the contrary seems clear and compelling. Such evidence includes the lack of sufficient quantities of water and the ark’s inadequacy to hold every land-dwelling species on Earth (as Ms. Cook has aptly alluded to). This dilemma produces an irresolvable tension for those who take both Scripture and science seriously. But if one follows rigorous rules of biblical exegesis (discovering the original intent of the text), a thoughtful reader finds that a global flood interpretation is neither as obvious nor as consistent as a superficial reading may suggest. Given a commitment to the veracity of both the Genesis text and the scientific record, a plausible scenario begins to emerge, and all the “problems” that Ms. Cook and others point out begin to disappear.

The case for a regional flood can be made from several perspectives. From a theological perspective, Genesis 6-9 tells the story of God’s act of judgment against wholesale reprobation and spiritual ruin. Scriptural integrity hinges primarily on whether the Flood killed all humanity except for the family of the one man who feared God. In other words, the theological point is whether or not the Flood was universal in its effect, regardless of its physical extent. The original Hebrew text supports a universal flood impact and allows for a regional locus when viewed in context. If human life had not yet spread beyond Mesopotamia (Antarctica, for instance), God would have no reason to destroy more distant regions and the animal life there (such as penguins).

Further help in interpreting the Flood text comes from Psalm 104, in which the recently formed Earth is described during a period before the creation of advanced life when oceans completely covered the globe (vv. 5-9). As the continents arose, the water collected in the ocean basins. The events described in these verses perfectly align with known geologic facts and the formation of the first landmasses on creation “day” three (Gen. 1:9-10). The Psalmist then goes on to clearly state that water would never again completely cover the planet. Note that the “Archangel of Nebadon” is in complete agreement with this interpretation: “The only time the surface of the earth was completely covered by water was during those Archeozoic ages before the land had begun to appear” (78:7.4).

From an anthropological perspective, treacherous mountains to the north and east and inhospitable deserts to the south and west made the well-watered Mesopotamian Plain a difficult place for early humans to leave. Virtually all world history texts designate this area as the “cradle of civilization.” The most repeated command of God to humanity in Genesis 1-9 is to multiply and fill the earth (Gen. 1:26,28; 9:1,7). God’s repeated insistence is indicative of man’s consistent resistance toward God’s command to fill the earth. As further evidence for man’s failure to expand beyond the Mesopotamian region, all people mentioned in Genesis 1-9 lived in that locale.[7]

Geophysically speaking, a regional flood interpretation fits the scientific data about the quantity of water available in Earth’s crust and atmosphere. Genesis 7:11-12 indicates that the floodwaters came from Earth’s aquifers and atmosphere and eventually (see Gen. 8:1-5) returned to those places. Physical scientists can calculate that Earth contains only 22% of the water required to cover every mountain on the planet. Moreover, the geologic history of Earth is well understood based upon observable tectonic processes, constantly improving radiometric dating techniques, and thousands of deep core samples taken over the entire globe.[8] Geology research findings do not support a global flood interpretation. On the other hand, a regional flood interpretation can be tested and verified through computer flood models.

Another factor in favor of a regional Flood is the geography of the Mesopotamian region. More specifically, the region’s topography combined with the Flood’s extreme meteorological conditions could support the containment of the floodwaters for several months. These floodwaters would have been deep enough to destroy all humanity and associated animals except those on the ark. Assuming the Earth’s entire human population lived on the Mesopotamian Plain at that time (a rough guess would be 25,000 to 50,000 years ago), a flood that reached 200 to 300 meters deep would have destroyed all humanity on the land. The geographical extent of such a flood would have included areas that today belong to Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. The account of the ark’s resting place also seems geographically and historically plausible. Genesis 8:4 describes that place as the “mountains of Ararat,” which are well below the highest probable flood elevation (400 meters) in what is now north central Iraq.

Other possible scenarios favor a universal flood in a region other than the Mesopotamian river basin, perhaps filling one of the basins surrounding Eastern Turkey, the traditional site of the mountains of Ararat, such as the Mediterranean, Black Sea, or Caspian basins. Although the exact geographical location and extent of the Genesis Flood may never be known, geologists can say with some assurance that the event described in Scripture makes sense as a localized but universal (with respect to humans and their animals) catastrophe. This interpretation of the Genesis Flood text fits the available evidence. The fact that the “Archangel of Nebadon” does not recognize that a vocal faction of regional flood proponents existed even in the early twentieth century is either evidence of angelic ignorance or a blatant attempt at pigeonholing all those who take the biblical Flood account “literally” as belonging to the lunatic fringe of global flood theorists.

We also have the witness of Jesus to confirm Noah’s ark and the great Flood found in Genesis 6-8. In His Olivet Discourse, Jesus clearly affirmed that “as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all” (Luke 17:26-27). Here again, as was the case of Jonah, Jesus is predicting that a future historical event will take place as an antitype to an event recorded in the Old Testament. He must therefore have regarded the Flood as literal history, just as it was recorded in Genesis. And wouldn’t you know it? These passages are suspiciously missing from The UB’s version of the Olivet Discourse (Paper 176).

Echo

But, remember! The Hebrew priests did not claim to be writing by inspiration. In later days numerous stories were assembled and labeled the inspired, infallible Word of God.

A repeat of The UB’s “Second Isaiah” section (97:7.3), which has been previously discussed.

The Dating Game

Many races harbor the story of a worldwide flood some time during past ages. It is true that at one time, almost one billion years ago, our planet was covered for a time by a worldwide ocean with an average depth of over one mile. But there has never been a worldwide flood since life was planted on earth about 550 million years ago by a divine order of the Sons of God, the Life Carriers. [57:7:7] [57:8:3] [58:4:2] [78:7:3-5] [Genesis, Chapters 6 and 7]

Here is where Ms. Cook’s diligent allegiance to The UB, in this case the earth history timeline provided in Part III, gets her into deep water (gotcha again!). While it is true that our planet was once completely covered with water, the emergence of the continents goes way back to about four billion years ago, which marks the division between the Hadean and Archean Eons. (The UB, true to the scientific writings of its time, did not distinguish these two eons, but classified the earliest time period of earth history into one eon, called the Archeozoic.) Moreover, the first evidence of life on earth appeared about 3.8 billion years ago, not 550 million years ago as The UB claims (58:4.2).

Many Urantian apologists are quick to point out a convenient disclaimer found in Paper 101 of The UB, entitled “The Limitations of Revelation,” which “explains away” any science contained therein that would otherwise be deemed “outdated” by some. The claim is made that the “celestial revelators” were not permitted to provide us with unearned science, so as not to advance our scope of knowledge beyond our years. However, many of the scientific inaccuracies (such as those mentioned above) are couched within The UB’s discourses found in Part III regarding the history of planet Urantia and are, by virtue of the authors’ own reckoning, exempt from coverage under their disclaimer. The introductory material from the first paper of Part III reads as follows: “We will use the nearest whole numbers as the better method of presenting these historic facts” (57:0.2; emphasis added). In light of these inexcusable inaccuracies, we are left to ponder whether these “Life Carriers,” the alleged extraterrestrials who supposedly planted the first forms of life on this planet about 550 million years ago (which would have been late by more than three billion years), ever existed in the first place!

ENDNOTES