Did Balaam's Donkey Really Talk?

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

The writer of Numbers tell us that God made a donkey talk to its master:

When the donkey…turned off the road into a field, Balaam beat her to get her back on the road.…the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me?"

Balaam answered the donkey, "You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now."

The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?

"No," he said. (Numbers 22:23-30 (NIV)

Did this really happened, or is this a fable created to capture the imagination of Old Testament readers? If you believe words actually came from the donkey's mouth, why?

[Sher]

Today @ 03:28 AM post located here
Joseph Alward:

[...] If you believe words actually came from the donkey's mouth, why?

Nope... I am going to be good and not make the obvious joke here.

[spl_cadet]

Yes it happened. And there is no evidence for the contrawise, so why shouldn't I believe it?

[Valmoon]

Are you joking Cadet? I hope so.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 05:11 PM post located here
Valmoon:

Are you joking Cadet? I hope so.

Nope, not joking.

[Valmoon]

Would your knowledge of what children under two years old can do influence your belief or skepticism of the following:

Yesterday my 18 month old nephew prepared an elaborate 4 course meal for me and my family. The shrimp scampi he made us was especially good.

Wouldnt your knowledge of children under two year olds give you some basis for being skeptical of my claim?

In the same way shouldnt the lack of any donkeys talking to you, your friends, farmers, etc give some basis for one to be skeptical of this extraordinary claim?

[AtheistArchon]

Yes it happened. And there is no evidence for the contrawise, so why shouldn't I believe it?

- Hmm. First of all, this kind of thinking, if we do it all the time, produces gullibility on a GRAND SCALE. For example, there is no evidence that I am not god. Why should you not believe that I am then?

- Secondly, I believe there is actually some pretty hard evidence against donkeys speaking. For one, they lack proper vocal cords and mouth/tongue configurations. Humans, and thus far humans alone, are equipped for speech.

- Now, a donkey can certainly bray... but it's impossible for a donkey to vocalize human words. The equipment just isn't there.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 07:37 PM post located here
Valmoon:

Would your knowledge of what children under two years old can do influence your belief or skepticism of the following:

Yesterday my 18 month old nephew prepared an elaborate 4 course meal for me and my family. The shrimp scampi he made us was especially good.

Wouldnt your knowledge of children under two year olds give you some basis for being skeptical of my claim?

In the same way shouldnt the lack of any donkeys talking to you, your friends, farmers, etc give some basis for one to be skeptical of this extraordinary claim?

Well, here's the thing. Inspired word of God = trustworthy account.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 08:34 PM post located here
AtheistArchon:
- Hmm. First of all, this kind of thinking, if we do it all the time, produces gullibility on a GRAND SCALE. For example, there is no evidence that I am not god. Why should you not believe that I am then?

Because Jesus is which thus negates the possibility that you could be.

- Secondly, I believe there is actually some pretty hard evidence against donkeys speaking. For one, they lack proper vocal cords and mouth/tongue configurations. Humans, and thus far humans alone, are equipped for speech.

Miracle, duh.

- Now, a donkey can certainly bray... but it's impossible for a donkey to vocalize human words. The equipment just isn't there.

See above.

[AtheistArchon]

Well, here's the thing. Inspired word of God = trustworthy account.

- Lots of claims are backed up by being the inspired word of god. Do you believe them all? Or only the ones that are in the bible?

Because Jesus is which thus negates the possibility that you could be.

- That's not evidence, that's belief. Trust me, there is absolutely no way of showing that I'm not god... just trust me on this. There's no way of showing that I'm not a magical bologna sandwich either. And that's my point.

- By saying "theres no evidence that it's NOT true", you're opening yourself up to every claim being true that is not disproven... and this is the reason we in science refer to "falsifiability", a-la Karl Popper.

- Most pseudoscience can be easily sniffed out by relying on a simple form of logic known as falsificationism (as proposed by Karl Popper, in 1934). Simply stated, falsificationism dictates that a scientific theory must be able to be proven false. If a theory is not falsifiable, then there is no real way to ever test it… we can use purple moon monkeys to illustrate what a non-falsifiable hypothesis is: “There are purple monkeys living on the surface of the moon, and these monkeys flee to the dark side whenever anyone attempts to detect them visually. They are, by definition, space faring creatures, and shy… thus whenever a satellite or probe is sent they will fly beyond our abilities of detection until the coast is clear.” How could this hypothesis ever be falsified? There is no way to do it – it can never logically be discounted as an option, no matter how silly it is. This is the classic mark of pseudoscience… it avoids scientific testing and experimentation completely, and it avoids it by virtue of the hypothesis itself.

- Falsificationism itself has nothing to do with the truth or validity of a hypothesis, but merely whether it is truly scientific or not. “Fairies visit me every night when I’m alone” is a non-falsifiable statement because it can never be proven false via experimentation or testing. “The greenhouse effect raises the global temperature of a planet” is a falsifiable statement because we can test it… and it could fail as a hypothesis. The same is true for the statement: “Apples turn into lead if left in the sunshine”… it is testable (and false).

- There are limitless claims out there that can never be shown as false! Do you believe them all?

Miracle, duh.

- Oh. Magic. Right. I forgot

- Can I use that one too? I'm god... I'm a miracle. I left Jesus up in heaven for this trip, and I miracled myself down to earth to debate on the theology boards.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 09:00 PM post located here
AtheistArchon:
- Lots of claims are backed up by being the inspired word of god. Do you believe them all? Or only the ones that are in the bible?

Do Fatima and Lourdes count? Not quite inspired word of God there though, as it's actually Mary there.

- That's not evidence, that's belief. Trust me, there is absolutely no way of showing that I'm not god... just trust me on this. There's no way of showing that I'm not a magical bologna sandwich either. And that's my point.

Bologna all belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, so that shows that you aren't.

- By saying "theres no evidence that it's NOT true", you're opening yourself up to every claim being true that is not disproven... and this is the reason we in science refer to "falsifiability", a-la Karl Popper.

Actually, I believe that the Bible is the word of God, thus that which is in it is true.

-snip

And you have gone off on a tangent. We aren't talking about scientific theories, but rather historical events.

- There are limitless claims out there that can never be shown as false! Do you believe them all?

Nope.

- Oh. Magic. Right. I forgot

Rather different from magic actually. Ask anyone who's had even the remotest contact with magic, you'll know that there is a huge difference (not saying that I believe in magic, I believe it's a bunch of bunk).

- Can I use that one too? I'm god... I'm a miracle. I left Jesus up in heaven for this trip, and I miracled myself down to earth to debate on the theology boards.

No, because that contradicts the Gospel which has been proven true.

[AtheistArchon]

No, because that contradicts the Gospel which has been proven true.

- Mmmkay, well it was worth a shot.

- Enjoy the talking animals.

[Valmoon]

Yes it happened. And there is no evidence for the contrawise, so why shouldn't I believe it?

After a few posts it appears your reason for believing the donkey talked is not nearly so simplistic as your above statement.

[spl_cadet]

That's because I always have underlying assumptions and whatchamacallit's.

[Solly]

If a talking donkey is so indicative of the gullibility of them ancient hebrews (and by implication, us Christians), why wasn't there more of them? How many talking animals are there in the Bible? 1....er...1.

Christians don't accept the talking doneky just because we like magic shows, it talked because God made it talk. Whether it spoke with a bray that was discernable as speech, or a bronx accent through well formed vocal chords created for the purpose, who can tell?

The trouble with all them skeptics out there, is that if it can't be repreated under acceptable conditions, then they dont accept it. That is hardly rational; at the very least they shopuld be agnostic and file it under, pending further evidence.