I don’t see why you would have to believe everything is a miracle or everything is natural as a binary choice. A mix of the two would seem to fit the bill. When there is mountains of evidence that a natural process was involved, then just accept that it was a natural process. When there is no evidence available then it becomes a matter of faith.
2 Likes
One miracle mentioned in the OT which I do not see reason to believe happened as described is the sun and moon standing still in Joshua 10:12-14. It makes reference to a book of Jashar, which best guess refers to a book of poetry. This suggests poetic license describing a prolonged battle, and so many Jewish scholars have long understood it. Others interpret this as describing a solar eclipse (though I cannot see how they come to such a conclusions), but some are enthusiastic in using this to pinpoint the battle in 1207 BCE on October 30, when such a solar eclipse is calculated to have occurred in the area.
I do like to point out as a matter of amusement that it is quite possible for the sun to stop in the sky of a planet as well as turn around and move backwards for a while. And this does happen in the sky of Mercury when its orbital speed exceeds it rotation speed for a short time during its orbit around the sun. But of course for the sun and moon to actually stop in the sky of the earth is not only an impossible violation of the laws of nature (conservation of angular momentum) but implies catastrophic consequences (tidal waves of water, rock and earth) making Noah’s flood look trivial.
2 Likes
Another plausible option is something more like “please let the sun stay behind that rare cloud, so it’s not quite so hot while we fight”.
1 Like
From a year ago:
Another interesting theory… but still not supporting a literal understanding of the text (which claimed the sun and moon stayed in the sky a whole extra day) since this effect cannot last quite that long (30 min is the most we have observed). …unless the “inversion” is not even in the atmosphere of the earth. LOL …it really is amazing what is possible even within the laws of nature, and I think that is the more important lesson of your suggestion.
1 Like
Exceptional timing, placing and degree is the suggestion. I’m not committed to it, being neither a meteorologist nor knowing the topography, but it still remains a possibility and not so quickly dismissed with a hand wave and a ‘usually’.
We certainly agree there. You may recall my mentioning a man in a boat during a storm on Galilee. He said something and the storm suddenly stopped. What natural laws were broken? None, but the disciples were awestricken! (It became completely calm and they had to row all the way back because of their fearful lack of faith. 
)
1 Like
He is the law of nature
1 Like
I read once an interpretation of the narrative where sun ‘stopped’ (Joshua 10:12-14). Unfortunately, I do not remember the writer (possibly John Walton??). A detailed analysis of the text showed that the apparently simplest YEC-style explanation (sun and moon stopped) was unlikely. The style and genre of the text, the way how ANE people wrote about events during that time, the described position of the sun and the moon, etc. suggested an alternative interpretation. No stopping of the sun and moon, just a description of an exceptional victory in the language of the ANE people.
From the described position of the sun and moon, it was even possible to calculate the timing of the event. Not the year but approximately the month and hour.
2 Likes
The key theological error to avoid is a god of the gaps. The Bible consistently identifies God as being at work in non-miraculous as well as miraculous events. Seen this way, a natural law explanation versus a miracle are simply different possible ways for God to do something. There seems to be a trend to minimize the amount achieved by a miracle, besides the specific admonitions against demands for a miracle. For example, crowds were fed with a few loaves and fish, but the leftovers were saved; water turned to wine, but had to be served in the ordinary manner; an axe head floated just enough to grab it and then fasten it back on better. Some miracles do have plausible natural-law explanations for the physical event; the miracle is mainly in the timing and anticipation. For example, there is a fish in the Sea of Galilee known for picking up shiny stuff, but Jesus knew that Peter would catch one carrying exact change. However, there are also ridiculous attempts t provide a natural-law explanation for many miracles, such as the suggestion that Elijah was actually pouring kerosene rather than water over the altar (centuries before the invention of petroleum distillation) or that walking on water could have happened because springs produce varying salinity in the Sea of Galilee and a bit of fresher water might freeze when most of the water was still liquid (ignoring the difficulties of surfing in a storm on a tiny chunk of melting ice).
2 Likes
Young bluefish also snap at shiny stuff. The lure to catch them is simply a piece of shiny metal with hooks. (Of course, my fishing and fish-eating days are long gone)
Have you ever read Heavenly Man by Brother Yun. Miracles abound, especially where persecution abounds. It’s like reading the Book of Acts. I sometimes wonder that I must be a poor Christian because the Lord has done a few miracles in my life. When I have shared them, people try to explain them away. If you don’t want to believe in miracles, even after you see them you will reject them. I don’t know if I am correct here, but I think it requires ‘eyes to see’ which is a gift. If you would like I will share one of the miracles with you
Frank
Or … you could see it as people trying to authenticate the miracle claim. It is a natural instinct for us to try to ‘explain’ things, right? So I wouldn’t be too harsh on your friends who share in that reaction as well.
That said, you still have a point. It seems to me that eyes of faith shouldn’t be dividing the world into an “acts of God pile” kept separate from a “we’ve explained this stuff” pile.
1 Like
There are many bogus claims of miracles, both fakes and people being too eager to see something as miraculous when it has a natural-law explanation. A certain degree of skepticism about claimed miracles is prudent. After all, if they weren’t exceptional, they wouldn’t be impressive. But an a priori rejection of the possibility of anything being miraculous becomes merely circular reasoning.
4 Likes
The question that keeps coming to my mind is why is evolution singled out amongst the rest of the scientific theories? I would hazard a guess that those who speak out against TE are themselves theistic meteorologists, theistic gravitationalists, theistic germists, theistic chemists, and a whole host of other areas of science where they accept the reality of those natural processes. Do they think their acceptance of those natural processes somehow precludes them from believing in divine miracles?
5 Likes
I often compare it to the shift from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism. People thought the Earth was the center of the universe, with the Sun and all of the other planets moving about us. Suddenly, someone started saying that we were just another planet like the rest, and that we weren’t the center of the universe. That was a real challenge to the human exceptionalism that many had built up around the idea of Geocentrism. What Galileo did to astronmy Darwin did to Biology. We were no longer the centerpiece of the biological world, but were instead a part of the biological world like all of the other species.
4 Likes
I’m wondering “justify” to whom?
That aside, I totally understand the mindset of wanting to understand the plausibility of “miracles” and thinking they are only miracles if without an explainable cause. Yes, I personally totally believe that God follows His “natural” laws even in the case of miracles. We’ve only been able to fly in little more than a century. Discovered a ligament in the human knee within only in a few decades.
I find it absolutely amazing that everything is always in motion on an atomic level we can’t see. I’ve been trying to understand basic quantum mechanics which has me thinking about how those theories and math formulas theoretically allow for time travel; yet at this point in time (some would say anytime) this is not possible for us. And an article I have not yet read through " Scientists say your “mind” isn’t confined to your brain, or even your body"
A lot of what we believe is taken on faith before actually realized.
I found a lot to soundly ponder in watching Aquinas101 (dot com) videos, especially those on Faith and Reason.
On Exodus, I suggest googling about the science of the 10 plagues if you haven’t already.The last plague is the ‘miracle’ one, specific to debunking Pharaoh as god (Pharaoh’s father had ordered the killing of Israelite slave male babies) the last plague being specific to the death of ALL firstborn of animals and humans (NOT just babies) who had not followed God’s Passover prescription directions.
One could say well maybe it didn’t really kill all the first born, it’s that “telephone” thing. For me, it’s been in reading the whole of scripture over and over, until the Spirit opens up the analogies and fulfillment of prophecies, and when those little Epiphanies happen, it’s mind blowing sometimes.
The apostles didn’t get it either until after the Resurrection when Jesus opened up the truth by explaining how He had fulfilled the prophecies, how He is perfect justice and mercy.
It’s twice in the same chapter where Jesus calms the storm and walks on water. I used to ponder that last one a lot. And the apostles see and yet don’t really get the miracles in many ways.Understanding can depend on looking over various bible translations. Like scientists biblical scholars can have differing opinions. So IMO a lot depends on the work of the Spirit in opening our eyes. Also on translations, there is info we may not know in that a culture can have idioms or colloquialisms. For instance most versions of Jesus walking on the water he says to the apostles, “It is I, don’t be afraid.” But a more accurate translation is “Do not be afraid, I AM.” God’s name as given to Abraham is “I am who I am”. Which also has implications about time (Alpha/Omega)… It’s the kind of point you might not put together unless you’re reading study notes or such.
Thanks for posting your question. I find a lot in praying and asking God to help me see him, to have a better understanding of who He is, like any personal relationship.
Dear Lord, tell me about yourself. I’m having a hard time squaring this point… “I believe, help my disbelief.”
Blessings to you Adam.
“Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened”
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” -Hebrews 11
2 Likes
Central location was usually associated with bad things–i.e. only Earth is flawed by topography and by sin; Hell is underground, more centrally located; and Heaven is outside everything.
1 Like
Hello @T_aquaticus ,
You asked what I think is the most important question regarding the whole evolution and Christianity dogfight:
And in a nutshell, I think the answer is that the truth of evolution forces us (doctrinally conservative Christians) to recognize that some of our most foundational doctrines, which we have long understood to be settled and essential for understanding the relationship between God and humanity, cannot be supported in the ways we have long thought were obvious. The concerns over heliocentrism/egocentrism brought to light important cultural differences between the ANE and the later church leaders, who were hammering out doctrines that we still hold, and taught us (or should have) to handle the Bible more carefully. But it didn’t really shake foundational doctrines dealing with sin, judgement, salvation, redemption, etc… Evolution appears to, may actually, do that. Then the question quickly becomes broader: if these foundational doctrines are questionable, does this mean they are unsupportable? If they are unsupportable, does Christianity, true or not, serve any purpose at all?
I looked around for a tolerable article that was already written (because I don’t have time to do the research and writing) that provides an overview of the big issues, and I found this one. Here’s the abstract:
Seven challenges are identified and described in the debate, namely, regarding a recognition of deep (geological) time (challenging the historicity of the biblical creation narratives), understanding the role of chance in natural selection (posing questions about the nature of divine action, e.g., providence), human descent (challenging presumed human distinctiveness), a recognition of natural suffering (challenging the benevolence of the Creator), identifying the evolutionary roots of evil (challenging Christian views on the fall of humanity), a recognition of natural disselection (challenging notions of divine election) and, finally, evolutionary explanations of the emergence of morality and of religion (reiterating the challenge of atheism). It is argued that with each of these challenges, some of the underlying problems were provisionally resolved, only to reappear later in an even more challenging form.
Understanding that these are the issues that many Christians perceive to be at stake can help provide a lens to see what is going on in so many discussions here in this Forum, and explain the level of stress that accompanies them. Many feel an underlying fear that if evolution really is true, then everything they have always understood to be true is not.
9 Likes
Yeah… these are things which people like me who started with evolution and the scientific worldview built into their understanding of Christianity from the beginning. Though some of it is not so much a contradiction to the traditional understanding but seeing how it doesn’t have to change them all that much. I’d like to pull these seven challenges into a list and comment on them – which combined two of them giving only 6 challenges, both chance and natural selection being the evolutionary alternative to divine design.
- literal treatment of creation narrative.
- understanding of why living organisms are as they are.
- understanding of the difference between man and animals.
- understanding of death and natural suffering.
- understanding of the origin of evil.
- understanding of the origin of morality and religion.
When you start with a scientific worldview as part of how you understand what you read in a text like the Bible…
- You don’t even imagine taking the creation narrative literally and perhaps you don’t even look so closely at the details of the chapter one narrative.
- Not being a matter of divine design helps a great deal with the problem of evil and suffering.
- Knowing life isn’t something simply added to non-living material, you look for a different meaning of the divine breath such as inspiration which speaks more to this difference between man and animals than how God actually created human beings.
- Knowing physical death and natural suffering couldn’t be a result of the fall, you look for other meanings of what the Bible describes as the result of sin and the separation of man from God.
- This is a more tricky issue, for most people see evil as a problem peculiar to people. So even I didn’t see this as something which had any part of the natural world until much later. But it only requires less of an absolute distinction, the fall having more to do with God’s hope for what we could become in a relationship with Him rather than an invention of the very idea of evil itself.
- Starting with a scientific worldview you are more likely to connect morality to reasons why some things are good or evil rather than seeing them purely as a product of divine command. In that case you have less resistance to the idea of morality evolving in animals than you would otherwise.
1 Like
I’m not understanding the difference between your version of God intervening (miracles) and Dale’s version of providence. How is God able to intervene and not at the same time “not intervene” which is also a choice? It seems as though you believe the same thing and state it differently, unless I’m misunderstanding you. (Which is entirely possible.)