If you had never been taught that snakes and donkeys talk

[Zzyzx]

.
Nearly everyone in modern societies is exposed to supernatural stories as part of their culture's religious orientation. Different cultures and different times favor different supernatural tales and promote different supernatural beings. Some favor leprechauns, some demons, some "gods" and "goddesses".

The young are taught the stories of favored supernatural beings – and learn that such beings account for all unknowns (up to and including human death and "afterlife"). This "religious training" or indoctrination typically occurs before young people have developed judgment and discernment – and while they are easily influenced by "authorities" (parents, teachers, preachers and "leaders").

Christian children are taught that bible stories of incredible events are true – a pair of all the world's animals lived for months on an "ark" and all others (including humans) were killed by a flood "to the tops of mountains";a person lived for three days "in the belly of a fish" and emerged to preach; dead bodies came back to life miraculously; a religious leader walked on water and calmed stormy seas with a command; etc, etc.

Many go through life not questioning the incredible tales – assuming that they are true because that is what they were told.

Questions for debate:

1. If you were not taught to believe the incredible tales were true, would you consider such stories in a book to be truthful and accurate?

2. If similar incredible stories are presented in a book OTHER than the bible, do you accept them as truthful and accurate? Why?

[cnorman18]

CNorman: If someone believes God can create a universe, as you believe, then IMO they have no basis for denying that God can't speak through a donkey.

Am I wrong?

Lots I could say here, but for now this will do: I've never said that God can't do anything He chooses.

I don't say that the she-donkey did or didn't speak, either; what I say is that it doesn't matter.

If you have read the post you quote from, you know that I'm tired of debates over the literal truth of Scripture. IMO, that's a minor matter.

If you want to talk about the Balaam pericope and how it both does and doesn't fit with the rest of this passage, or about the formation and contextual significance of the Biblical text here, or about the fact that extraBiblical evidence of a real Balaam exists, or about the fact that the Hebrew word in Numbers 22:22 which is translated as "Adversary" is actually Satan, or, Heaven be praised, about what this passage might actually mean, let me know.

But if all you want to discuss is whether or not a donkey talked, I'm not interested.