Yeah, but @mitchellmckain doesn’t mean the same thing by football as @RichardG does. 
Without refrigeration or sterilization, fermentation begins to happen within days (assuming that the grapes were picked before fermentation started). Personally, I think of wine as juice gone bad but not concentrated enough to be useful for chemical use in the lab, so I don’t appreciate the aging that oenophiles talk about. But in some parts of the world, the “just begun fermenting” fresh wine is quite popular. Again, given the limited technology for sealing bottles, wine would tend to go on to vinegar relatively quickly in the ancient Near East. So the “best wine” might have resembled that produced as soon as a few days after picking the grapes. But it is still true that the normal process of turning water into wine takes about a year and uses a grapevine, rather than instantaneously happening directly from water.
The problem with the young-earth approach is not the existence of miracles, but the particular claimed miracles. The newly-made wine at Cana would have the appearance of being produced by the longer process of grape-growing rather than instantaneously. But no label appeared on the jars proclaiming “Chateau Naboth, 25 AD”, nor did it have traces of bugs and dirt to give greater verisimilitude to the idea that it had formed over a longer time period. (The latter might be a factor in why it was the best wine.) Adding such things was not necessary to the purpose of both addressing the immediate practical need and giving a vivid object lesson. John refers to miracles as signs, I have heard an apt comparison to highway signs. If a sign says Speed Limit 55 MPH, you are not responding properly by driving past at 70 MPH. But you are also not responding properly if you pull over and start admiring the sign. The sign is pointing towards a particular response. Also, the sign was not merely to address a practical need. Jesus’s temptation, and many subsequent refusals to perform a miracle, show that miracles are not merely for convenience nor for amazing people; rather, they point specifically to God.
Young-earth claims, on the other hand, are like having someone claiming to have turned water to wine when there’s a heap of empty wine bottles in the basement next to the jar and a receipt for buying them. Believing that miracles happen does not mean that we should believe all claims that a miracle has happened in a particular situation. It’s also problematic that the purported miracles would not be particularly distinctive as to which designer did them; ID sometimes admits this.
2 Likes
hmmm my understanding of the difference between the two is as follows:
assumption: the act of taking up adopting a belief
tenet: an existing belief or principle.
My brain tells me that its easier to see tenet a bit like a noun and assumption a bit like a verb (a doing word)
i think that one of the problems faced on this forum for example, centers around the definition and application of these two words.
As is usual for me…im heading off down a diverging pathway below:
I think that Individuals and groups often make the claim that many theological principles in the Bible are assumptions when its very obvious from a large number of biblical references that in fact they are tenets! Those who claim assumptions ignore the claim that the Bible is self-revealing in most of its doctrines (i believe all of its doctrines) we should look for the consistency across its pages (cross-referencing between different bible writers and times) than we know we have the right understanding when thinking about Biblical theology.
off the top of my head, and im trying to not thrust YECism here, so im going with one that is more universal for both YEC and TEists…
the doctrine of the Trinity. I think Biblically, this is a tenet (maybe someone has a better example?) but the other side argues Trinitarians are making assumptions.
“This VFA vs VFB is pretentious nonsense” Your wording seems to conflate two things here. You affirm that humans cannot speak for God, which implies that there is a difference between the view from above and the view from below. I think your claim might be more clearly worded as affirming that we cannot accurately claim to know the view from above, if I am rightly following both what you are saying and what is intended by the VFA/VFB distinction by those using it. .
The Bible emphasizes that our ways are not His ways and our thoughts are not His thoughts, so definitely we should not claim to have the view from above all figured out. At the same time, the whole point of the Bible is to give us some understanding of God, and so to give us some portion of the view from above, as adapted for the human umwelt (to steal a term from ecology - our perception of the world in light of our senses and abilities). We can talk about how we perceive things, and can confidently say that God’s perception is better informed than ours. Some aspects of God’s perspective are spelled out enough in the Bible that we can be fairly confident about them; e.g., that He has a comprehensive enough view to not be swayed by the excuses that we invent. But much requires the caveat that His view might be like our description (note, for example, how much John in Revelation uses “like” in trying to describe things).
Jeremiah 14:22 is another passage on God’s control of the weather, affirming that neither the pagan gods nor the clouds themselves can produce rain. Of course, the “under the sun” perspective, to use Ecclesiastes’ phrase, is that the rain is produced from clouds. That’s a decent physical description of how it works, more literal than Job’s poetic references to storehouses and sluices. And that is also what science can tell us. But the metaphors in Job or in the Flood narrative emphasize God’s agency behind the physical processes. The Bible does not spell out just what form the agency takes; it affirms that God is in control of what happens and that He is able to work differently from the usual physical pattern if He chooses. Yet such miraculous exceptions are rare; they are specifically to bring a particular message, rather than a convenient shortcut to achieving what could be done otherwise. Perhaps the most remarkable example of that is “You shall be my witnesses”. Why does God rely primarily on the flawed efforts of humans as the way to spread the gospel? There are even occasional miracles to get the human witness to the right place (Philip and the Ethiopian; sending Peter and Cornelius together; etc.). Why not just reveal it to the person, or have an angel give the message? God seems to restrict the miraculous to the minimum necessary. Guessing at why is speculation on the view from above.
4 Likes
Aging wine was done as far back as the time of the Judges, probably back five centuries before David. Interestingly, one of the first methods for sealing jars (stone ones could hold up to fifty liters!) was to use natural tar or pitch, which imparted a touch of its own flavor to the wine, a flavor that announced “This is well-aged wine!” There have also been ancient storage jars found with leather seals, which wouldn’t have added much to the flavor but which would have required regular dampening with oil or water to keep the seals tight. Sealing wax was another method.
Probably also the taste of having aged in stone jars for a year, which had as one advantage the settling of all particulate matter – a mark of “fine wine, well-refined”.
This sign may have been meant to point to Jesus as Lord of the Harvest since it turned water to fine wine in a moment rather than over two years, one of growing and one of aging. It also points to the feast the Lord will prepare on His mountain as promised in Isaiah 25.
Quite so!
The massive multiplication of miracles is madness.
1 Like
I made be reading the above quote wrong but it appears to be applying doubt to miracles in order to discredit YECism. If that is the point, i reject such claims. I made the point about the turning of the water into wine specificaly in support of young earth world view. so i think im interpreting the claim quoted above correctly.
I believe that denying the miracle of water into wine at the wedding Christ attended, is a claim of a person who has significant doubts about the authenticity of Christ and the gospel. I do not believe this can be used as a means of discrediting young earth creationism…but it [the event as described in the bible] does support the idea of miracles and Creation was surely all would agree, a miracle.
I accept that its possible to read the entire bible as an allegory dedicated to explaining morality, however, lets face it…i do not think Christians may stretch the myth so far as to cover Christs life and His miracles…the statements by early church fathers supporting Christ and his ministry and the events surrounding his ministry are just too recent in the written record to be discounted.
Such a claim gets ever more ridiculouis as we move forward through time…we would end up denying that individuals like Oregon, Erasmus, Martin Luther, or John Calvin ever existed? Thats just absurd given that on the other hand, many atheists believe Socrates really existed despite what i believe is reasonable evidence Socrates was nothing more than a constructed character of Plato in order to promote personal philosophical views in his school! The point is, the evidence for Socrates is far less than Christ and His miracles.
Shall we talk about ‘Flood geology’.
1 Like
If it wasnt for the Bible, you wouldnt even be posing that question…so this means you are looking in the wrong place for the story in the first place. Again, as with the miracle of the water into wine, a Christian cannot theologically support the idea that Noahs flood never took place. The genealogies in the bible alone make this theology extremely difficult for Christians to ignore.
The only way that this can be done, and this is one of the ways it generally starts:
- first denying Exodus 20:8-11.
- Hebrews 4 must also be discredited, particularly because it supports both 7 day creation AND the Sabbath
- then Revelation 14:12…and on it goes.
That is why SDA’s for example claim that the papacy is linked with the change of times and dates and the mark of the beast…they are directly linked and indeed even openly claim that historically they [the papacy and Catholic church] changed the Sabbath to Sunday worship. This is no secret.
But that is your view of the whole of creation. You are claiming God is controlling everything in the same way a miracle happens. IOW there is no such thing s a miracle. It is just God at work.
Richard
No, I think you are just difficult to understand. I keep looking for threads of logical coherence since I believe in that even if you don’t.
I admit as an American it is American football which I automatically pictured. It hardly matters since… my life isn’t one enriched by either… and the point holds regardless. Frankly, the only sport I watch professionals play is that of a board game Go.
1 Like
Hmm, this is the only place that has ever queried my eloquence or ability to communicate. Perhaps there is some lingo or format I am missing.
Richard
Now you are doing it. I never said anything of the sort. And I gave my own suggestion for a reason why this was happening… or… is that tit for tat?
No, it shows that mutual understanding or not often stems from the backgrounds or cultures of the participants. What is logical to one may not be seen the same from the other side of the pond for instance
Please, I am desperate not to either take offence or encourage (cause) it to be taken.
Richard
1 Like
Adam, I agree with your objection, as I think the YEC view of historical science being a big part of early Genesis is not comparable with a work outside of the natural order of things being specifically brought about to point to Jesus. One is an error of interpretation, the other is a denial of the nature of God. I say that knowing the irony given that YEC folk see EC as denying God’s nature in creation, whereas EC folk see YEC as borderline blasthemy in making God deceptive through creation.
2 Likes
- Really? Which Pope would that have been?
2 Likes
That’s pretty funny. If it weren’t for YECism’s ridiculous take on reality I wouldn’t talking about their silliness.
Since your reasoning is so obviously skewed right there, why should I read any further.
1 Like
That.
2 Likes
No, it doesn’t – you have to read both of those into the text.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
Not.
Even.
Close.
Yes you are reading the above quote wrong. Nobody is applying doubt to the miracle of water into wine, let alone to miracles in general, and to accuse them of such is to accuse people of holding positions that they do not—something that I understand is forbidden by the rules of this forum.
The point that @paleomalacologist was making was simply that there is a significant difference between young earthism and the miracle of water to wine. It is one thing for a miracle to give rise to a non-specific, qualitative and subjective appearance of maturity, which is all that we see in the water to wine miracle. It is a completely different matter for a miracle to give rise to a lengthy, detailed and measurable appearance of a history that never happened of specific events at specific times with specific causes, specific effects and specific relationships, which is what we would be seeing if the earth really were young and if the Flood really had created the fossil record. The former can serve a good faith purpose. The latter serves no purpose whatsoever other than deception.
That is what is being pointed out about your argument about water to wine. It’s not about rejecting the miracle itself; it’s about accepting that the miracle happened while making the point that doing so does not, as you claim, provide any justification for believing in a young earth.
5 Likes
I didn’t think so.
1 Like