That is really quite foolish, since a non-believer has no need to explain anything away. They simply take the text to be pure fiction from the get go. But the plain fact is that what we see in the world is according to natural law, repeatable and testable regardless of what you may want or believe. It is frankly downright bizarre to equate taking the Bible seriously with divorcing it from real life as we experience it, just in order take it literally in such an obstinate way. Frankly it is the atheists who prefer this kind of treatment of the text in order to discount it as fictional.
Does this mean that you cannot believe in miracles unless they are completely magical – that God cannot use anything in nature? Frankly I believe that God created the laws of nature and it looks inconsistent to believe that God would violate the laws He created just to impress ignorant savages who wouldn’t know the difference anyway. Magicians astound and amaze people without breaking a single law of nature… are they more clever than God? I don’t think so. I think God is even more clever and capable of performing miracles without breaking any of the laws of nature.
So… I know that just because a miracle can be explained by a natural event that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a miracle. Not everything which happens in nature are the things we expect or see all the time. For example if something passed through the solar system to block out the sun for three hours and cause tremors on the earth, that would rather unusual and for it to happen just at that time would be suspiciously coincidental. The same could be said for many other explanations miraculous in being quite different from our usual expectations for such events.
The point is, sometimes we simply have to accept that science cannot explain God. If a miracle occurs, such as Joshua asking for the sun to stand still, for darkness to come over Egypt, for darkness to surround the crucifixion…perhaps God speaking the universe and earth into existence really did happen exactly as the Bible’s says it did.
That would also apply to the creation of Adam and Eve, and the flood.
Science cannot explain miracles…otherwise they wouldnt be miracles would they! (Point and example was the miracles by Aaron and Moses in front of pharoah. Initially his own magicians copied them…but only so much then even the magicians realised these were acts of God.).
Science can only explain things that operate according to the laws of nature. God is not in that category. But obviously that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t use the things of nature.
I have no reason to doubt that people perceived what the Bible says. But there were no scientific instruments there making measurements and it is preposterous to pretend that there were. So I refute the magical subtext you add to the Bible which simply is not there in the text of the Bible.
After all, the Bible was not literally written directly by God. At most God used people to write things according to the perception of human authors according to their understanding of the world. That understanding is inseparable from the very language in which the text was written.
It is absurd to think that because there is no mention of chemistry, galaxies, and many other things that science has discovered that there must have been no such things in the events of the Bible. They were not in the Bible because they were not a part of the understanding and language of the people and it would have served no purpose for the Bible to speak of things they couldn’t possibly understand or have words for. Treating the text of the Bible as literal truth is thus dumbing down God Himself to the understanding of these ancient people which is totally ridiculous – serving no purpose but willful ignorance.
Wrong! Miracles involve the things of nature and those things can be studied by science. But scientists already KNOW that science cannot explain everything. That is something scientists were forced to accept because of the findings of science itself. Science can explain how things happen but cannot always explain why they happen. Science has shown that hidden variables to explain the why for every event simply do not exist.
You refute miracles? How do you propose to support that claim biblically?
I think that’s absurd.
You clearly have not followed the theological position that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God.
Do you not believe in divine Inspiration and understand what that means? Any claim that God did not directly control the writing of the Bible would be an undeniable position.
Moses writingd are not an isolated example of this…God spoke directly with many of the Bible writers.
No I refute your definition of miracles as magical violations of the laws of nature God created. I believe in a rational God who does things for a reason and in a logically coherent manner. I do not believe in the God invented by the abusers of religion for whom God is a magic they command to threaten and manipulate people.
I define miracles quite differently as the works of God in our lives which are particularly inspiring and amazing. Thus depending on the perception of the person even flowers and babies can be called miracles. And just because something has a scientific explanation doesn’t mean it isn’t a work of God and not a miracle.
??? what a bizarre thing to say… an incoherent logical contradiction. I repeatedly say that the Bible is the word of God and God using people to write it is what this means.
So what do you mean by this? And are you claiming Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn’t write those gospels, that Paul didn’t write those letters? Or do you mean God had nothing to do with them writing those things? Or are you claiming that when they wrote those gospels or letters that they became nothing more than mindless machines putting down the words which God dictated? That is not what the word inspiration means at all. When someone says a sunset inspired me to write a poem, he does not mean the sunset took over his body and wrote the poem instead of him.
Well looking this up… I get it. No I don’t buy into the explanation of this which is little more than an attempt by people to give themselves the authority to speak for God. They are in effect saying we don’t need God because in the Bible they already have God at their finger tips and can thus use the Bible to become the mouth of God Himself. But this doesn’t agree with the Bible where Jesus says in John 5, “39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” No the Bible does not take the place of God.
This was a supernatural darkness from noon until 3pm. Darkness throughout the scripture refers to judgement, divine judgement. Christ the Son was bearing the sin of the world and separation from the Father. At the end of this time He cries out in agony “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” as He is receiving the wrath of God on sin as our sin bearer. God makes it clear to all on that day and in His Word that He was present there in divine judgment as Christ accomplished the work of salvation for sinners. Once the work was complete, Christ reveals that to us in His glorious words “It is finished!” and the Father’s wrath is satisfied. Then Christ says “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit” and He yields up His spirit. That was not the only miraculous event of that day. The veil of the temple being torn from the top down was miraculous signifying that Christ, as our Great High Priest, had opened the way to the Father. Plus the earthquake and tombs being opened also are miraculous events punctuating this glorious event where Christ accomplished redemption and salvation of sinners. Finally, the testimony of the Roman Centurion and other guards as they declare “Truly this was the Son of God!” reveals their awe at all that God had done on that glorious day.
If we are accepting it as something that happened and not figurative language, then yes, it is a supernatural miracle. Same with the stilling of the storm and the resurrection.
We need to understand the polemical strategies of the Gospel authors who have to apologize to both Jew and Gentile alike for their belief that that a crucified criminal was the Messiah and Lord.
The passion narratives combine, theology, history and figurative eschatological language all in one. They are absolutely grinding an axe as anyone familiar with crucifixion in antiquity will tell you. The Christian position was madness, a mischievous and pernicious superstition, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. Things like the darkness, the Angel at the tomb, the rising of the holy ones and so on are likely fictional embellishments. But if they did happen, they are supernatural miracles and nothing less.
For students of NT studies, it’s interesting to see what Matthew adds to Mark and all the friction it creates. l wrote about some of it here.
Clearly Matthew has legendary developments and represents an intermediary form between the much simpler Gospel of Mark and the even more legendary Gospel of Peter.
talking about bizarre things…can you cite biblical references for this statement please? (indeed if you have any relevant supporting texts)
The bible outlines a number of important characteristics of miracles…so I’m not sure how it is that you have somehow developed your own method for authenticating them.
I would argue that an evolutionary theist would struggle to accept the concept that human birth is a miracle…I believe that logically such a view discredits the evolutionary process. The problem is, if the evolutionary process itself is a miracle, and such a miracle results in the eventual birth of humanity, why did a God who could simply speak things into existence go to such extraordinary lengths to explain a literal 7 day creation to his prophets (Moses wasn’t the only one btw) only to later on lead theistic evolutionists to the view that he told Moses and indeed almost all the bible writers that the creation account was a porky!
I note Benjamin made the claim that miracles that are not God driven are simply timing or process.
That is an interesting point, however it ignores Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
clearly these prophesied future miracles are not the result of timing or process. They are to be real miracles but we are told here that they are not of God …they are of the Devil!
The guy who was possessed by many demons (Legion) in the Bible is not in and of itself a miracle: it is certainly supernatural (demonic-possession) but the Bible sees that as a natural part of the world. The miracle was Jesus healing him. Miracles are faith-affirming events. Supernatural events are not always so and miracles do not always have to violate the laws of physics. Obviously many things in the Bible are very supernatural and many of the signs and wonders do fit the bill lewding many people to see miracles as supernatural in origin. Here is a short list:
Miracles over nature
• The parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14)
• Jonah and the big fish (Jonah 1:17)
• The virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:18–25)
• Daniel’s survival in the den of lions (Daniel 6:21–22)
• Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s preservation in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:25)
• Jesus’ walking on water (Matthew 14:25–27)
• Jesus’ calming of the storm (Matthew 8:23–27)
Miracles of resurrection
• Elijah’s raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath (1 Kings 17:17–24)
• Elisha’s raising the Shunamite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:18–37)
• Jesus’ raising of the widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11–18), Jairus’s daughter (Luke 8:52–56), and Lazarus (John 11)
• Peter’s raising of Tabitha (Acts 9:36–43)
• Paul’s raising of Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12)
• Jesus’ resurrection (Luke 24:1–7)
We can add many more to this including the talking ass, floating axe-head, resurrection of the saints in Matthew, etc etc.
i’d say miracles are unusual faith-affirming events that often go beyond what a strict methodological naturalism would deem reasonable based on the laws of physics as we know them.
talking about bizarre things…can you cite biblical references for this statement please? (indeed if you have any relevant supporting texts)
So… you are having a conversation with yourself supplying the arguments of others for you to shoot down. And you do this by directly ignoring what others have just said to you. The birth of a child is a miracle even though not one person has shown that this violates the laws of nature in any way. I reject this invention of those turning religion into a tool power that miracles represents a magical power by which these abusers threaten people to make them obey their fabricated authority.