Love the example. Not exactly what philosophers or theologians would call a “miracle” in these discussions, yet that’s exactly the language of the Bible. Isaiah’s prophetically-named children also qualify as “miracles” in the biblical vernacular: “Here am I, and the children the Lord has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the Lord Almighty …” (Is. 8.18). Not exactly a violation of natural law to give symbolic names to your children, is it?
Obviously, I cannot speak for @jstump, but I don’t think you are catching the distinction between biblical signs and wonders and philosophical “miracles” and “supernatural” events. The Bible doesn’t speak of anything as supernatural. In the Scripture, the division is not between natural/supernatural, but between seen/unseen. (Probably the closest parallel in our language is material/spiritual.) The very category of “supernatural” would have had no meaning prior to the Middle Ages. For the ancients, existence enveloped both the seen and the unseen – two sides of the same coin. Where moderns see an effect and attribute it solely to a physical cause, the ancients could see that same effect and attribute it to a physical and spiritual cause simultaneously. Jesus, for instance, could declare that God provides the ravens with food and sends his rain upon the evil and good alike, all the while knowing that plants produce the seeds eaten by birds and clouds produce the rain that falls upon the ground. For him, the fact that an observable physical cause provided a sufficient explanation did not exclude the active involvement of God in the process. The same could be said of evolution and of the continuing scientific quest for answers. Even when a “sufficient” physical cause is found, God is not excluded as “first cause.” Both are true in the Biblical worldview.
Returning to miracles, as I said way back in the beginning of the thread:
Again, not speaking for Jim Stump, but if you keep in mind that biblical “signs and wonders” always served a communicative purpose, as above, then the answer to your question becomes easier. You asked, “What, precisely, is the difference between “supernatural miracles”, which are detectable, and “violations of natural laws” which are not?”
Let’s suppose that God directly intervened to create the first living cell. This would be both a miracle and a violation of natural law, according to our definitions. Would it be a sign or wonder, in biblical language? Not necessarily. To fit the definition of a biblical sign, we would need clear evidence of God’s handiwork, which so far is lacking. How, then, is it a sign?
Claims of “miracles” – whether prehistoric, ancient, or modern – rarely, if ever, fit the pattern that we see in Biblical “signs and wonders.” Thus, the Christian response should be skeptical unless indisputable evidence, capable of convincing even staunch opponents, can be provided. That’s what we see in Acts 4:
13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14 But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. 15 So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16 “What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”