"I will say that just from the surface, I think the only way you can say these visions were merely hallucinations, is if you think the authors later secretly exaggerated the accounts, changed them, mythicized them. The problem there is that it becomes a presumptuous claim, its unfalsifiable."

Of course you do, but now that I have been able to leave go of my belly and stop laughing I am able to point out that your hilarious reversal of the burden of proof ignores some fairly salient facts.

1. We know that hallucinations occur, they're evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt.
2. No one can demonstrate evidence for revelation - BY DEFINITION, since it a personal experience exclusive to the person making the claim, some would say conveniently so, ahem.
3. The claim here is being made for a supernatural revelation, so the burden of proof is all theirs, and those rejecting it have to offer nothing.
4. I liked your usual use of the mendacious but stupidly clumsy trick, where you claim the rejection of a claim must mean that person is making the opposite or contradictory claim, which of course is nonsense. I don't know if they had a revelation, I don't know if it is even possible, but since they can evidence neither of those I don't need to know, anymore than I need to KNOW there isn't an invisible unicorn in front of me in order no to believe the claim if it were made. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, no matter how many shrill apologists lie to the contrary.

Nice try though, I appreciate the laugh....