Henke 2022h

Circular Reasoning in Lundahl (2022a) and Lundahl (2022h) When Citing Bishop Challoner and Numbers 22:21-28

Kevin R. Henke

September 15, 2022

As I mentioned in Henke (2022b) and further discussed in Henke (2022g), Lundahl (2022a) improperly quotes a Bishop Challoner when he discusses how angels can supposedly explain the talking donkey story in Numbers 22:21-28. Lundahl (2022a) says the following:

“Christianity doesn't propose snakes or donkeys generally talk. Have a look at Bileam's ass:

[21] Balaam* arose in the morning, and saddling his ass went with them. [22] And God was angry. And an angel of the Lord stood in the way against Balaam, who sat on the ass, and had two servants with him. [23] The ass seeing the angel standing in the way, with a drawn sword, turned herself out of the way, and went into the field. And when Balaam beat her, and had a mind to bring her again to the way, [24] The angel stood in a narrow place between two walls, wherewith the vineyards were enclosed. [25] And the ass seeing him, thrust herself close to the wall, and bruised the foot of the rider. But he beat her again:

[26] And nevertheless the angel going on to a narrow place, where there was no way to turn aside either to the right hand or to the left, stood to meet him. [27] And when the ass saw the angel standing, she fell under the feet of the rider: who being angry beat her sides more vehemently with a staff. [28] And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said: What have I done to thee? Why strikest thou me, lo, now this third time? [29] Balaam answered: Because thou hast deserved it, and hast served me ill: I would I had a sword that I might kill thee. [30] The ass said: Am not I thy beast, on which thou hast been always accustomed to ride until this present day? tell me if I ever did the like thing to thee. But he said: Never.

What does bishop Challoner say about this?

[28] "Opened the mouth": The angel moved the tongue of the ass, to utter these speeches, to rebuke, by the mouth of a brute beast, the brutal fury and folly of Balaam.”

In Henke (2022b) and Henke (2022g), I discussed the confusion that Lundahl (2022a) created by not referencing the Bishop Challoner quotation and placing it into a bibliography. After explaining that he had forgotten about the link, Lundahl (2022h) provided the necessary link and other information on the identity of Bishop Challoner. Lundahl (2022h) then comments on Numbers 22:21-28 and Bishop Challoner’s interpretation:

“In his capacity as Bible reviser and as magisterially competent commenter on Holy Scripture, since he is a bishop. Even without the link, the logic of the format should have jumpted to Henke's eyes:

[28] And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said: What have I done to thee? Why strikest thou me, lo, now this third time?

Bible text. Note, it is including the words "opened the mouth" - important for the next point:

[28] "Opened the mouth": The angel moved the tongue of the ass, to utter these speeches, to rebuke, by the mouth of a brute beast, the brutal fury and folly of Balaam.

· Verse number is given as [28]

· words are cited in quotation marks, followed by a colon, "Opened the mouth":

· an explanation of what this means is given.”

As I stated in Henke (2022b), I understood what Lundahl (2022a) was trying to say here:

“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.”