Henke 2022az

I Didn’t Forget about the Title of Lundahl (2022a), I Disagreed with It

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

In Henke (2022b), I made the following comments about the talking donkey story in the book of Numbers:

“Lundahl (2022a) further cites the story of the talking donkey in Numbers 22:22-41. As with his other references to the Bible, he cites this story without providing a shred of evidence that it actually happened. He simply wants his readers to irrationally accept the story as history. We certainly know that donkeys and snakes don’t talk. That’s the big problem with these stories. There’s no rational reason to believe them. It’s far more probable that someone just made up these stories. Because others liked and believed them, they got into the Bible.

Without giving a proper reference, Lundahl (2022a) refers to a Bishop Challoner and states that angels are capable of making a donkey talk without violating natural law. Once more, Mr. Lundahl commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. Without having a shred of evidence, he invokes a groundless story about an angel to explain another groundless story about a talking donkey. He has done absolutely nothing to rationally convince us that any of these stories ever happened. He just expects us to accept that this account in Numbers was history because it’s in the Bible.” [my emphasis]

Henke (2022g) reviews the mysterious Bishop Challoner and Henke (2022ab) further discusses circular reasoning and how Mr. Lundahl frequently uses this fallacy.

Lundahl (2022k) then replies to the bolded statements in the above quotation from Henke (2022b):

“Henke forgets that, the title of this essay was Several Types of "Supernatural" Featured in Stories Believed to be True and that the top just below the title featured how Henke defines the supernatural.”

No, Mr. Lundahl, I did not forget about the title of Lundahl (2022a), which is “Several Types of ‘Supernatural’ Featured in Stories Believed to be True.” I just reject the validity of the title and almost all of the claims in Lundahl (2022a). There’s no legitimate evidence anywhere in Lundahl (2022a) that supports the existence of the supernatural and why anyone should believe that these stories are true.

The poorly worded title of Lundahl (2022a) is saying that there are stories that are believed to be true and that these stories contain several different types of “supernatural” phenomena. First of all, why should we believe any individuals that think that their supernatural claims are true? Where’s their evidence? There are millions of people that will simply believe whatever their Bibles, pastors, priests, rabbis, parents, gurus, teachers, astrologers, psychics, professors, government leaders, journalists, etc. tell them. I don’t care about their uninformed opinions. I don’t care about traditions and the unreliable superstitions of Mr. Lundahl’s “first known audience.” What’s really important is what are scientists and other experts in the field saying about these stories and their supposed several different types of supernatural claims?

No doubt, millions of people believe that the talking donkey of Numbers 22 is history. I don’t care what they believe. I want to know what the experts on Middle Eastern history and archaeology conclude about Numbers 22, including the talking donkey. Their views are relevant. Mr. Lundahl should be properly referencing these experts and discussing their conclusions rather than just quoting the Bible, a “first known audience” and a Bishop Challoner as if they are automatically reliable.

Secondly, anyone can classify anything. Just because we can group supposed supernatural events into different types and that this classification system may become widely accepted, that does not mean that any of these events were real. People can also group cartoon characters into different types as well.