Let's deal with this on a smaller scale. I mentioned the crossing of the Red Sea. Do you believe that there was a wall of water on the left and on the right of them as they passed over the dry sea bed?
I assume you are referring to Exodus 14:21-22. Yes, I believe that what is recorded in those verses happened.
This example differs from discussing the stars. I know of no extant archaeological evidence of that event (though there have been some embarassing attempts to fabricate evidence). Any "scientific" discussion of the matter is not scientific at all. It is mere speculation. And so, for this example, I am satisifed to trust God and say I don't know how it happened. Since I haven't seen any credible evidence of the event, I'm also willing to push back against those who think it can be a scientific discussion.
Discussing the stars is different, given we have some accessible evidence.
No, I have no problem with anyone studying the matter ...
Good. From what I know of you, that is the answer I expected. I don't think we're that far apart on this issue, but it appears you may be assuming things about my position that are not correct. Hopefully that will be clarified as we move forward.
... Further, if my definition of miracle is correct, and God is the God who works miracles, and I believe that something is a miracle of God, then how would I expect to ever be able to give a naturalistic explanation for 'how' that miracle came about other than from the hand of God?
I meant only an explanation, not a "naturalistic explanation". I happen to have a strong aversion to naturalism - to the extent that I would say naturalistic explanations are never proper. I will add the caveat that God promises us, to some extent, an ordered universe. Therefore, if by "naturalistic" someone means an explanation based on the assumption that past order will continue into the future, then yes, I can agree with that. But if someone is using "Nature" in a pantheistic sense, or as a vague, undefined secular replacement for God, then I will object.
Further, let me clarify what I meant when I said the definition of miracle doesn't matter. Once I understand your definition, I can work with it. Words are only tools for communication. It's not as if we'll disrupt the fabric of the universe if we don't properly define "miracle".
Per your definition, miracle means "things done by God that we
don't understand." I'm OK with that. I use the word differently, but knowing how you use it allows us to communicate. As long as that's what you mean, I can use that definition for this conversation.
However, I was further stating that your definition
will become an issue if you mean "things done by God that we
can't understand." That
completely changes this conversation. Whether you realize it or not, what I then hear is a declaration that people should not study the matter - that it is impossible and pointless to ask questions about the conclusions you're drawing. That is where we will have an issue.
Now, I fully believe there are some things we will never understand. But I think it is silly to say we know where the line is between understanding and not understanding - between what we can investigate and what we can't. Even in the case of the parting of the Reed Sea, if people want to speculate about how it happened, they have my blessing to go at it. I'm just saying I'll not participate until there is some attendant evidence of the event because I don't see the point - I don't see how anyone can call it scientific.
Of course the natural doesn't diminish God's ability to perform miracles, but honestly I don't see the correlation. I have never claimed that every single thing that God does is a miracle. Just that He does do miracles.
I was pointing out that some people are offended by attempts to explain miracles. They seem to think it somehow tarnishes God's majesty. I don't see it that way. I enjoy investigating such things, and it only increases my awe of God's power.
For those made uncomfortable by a discussion of miracles, it further seems they begin to go to ridiculous lengths to deny what simply comes down to matter of observing the very things God has given us.
I'm hoping you're not to that point.
Well, I can answer that for you. God spoke the stars into existence. Out of absolutely nothing He merely said let there be stars and within an instant our universe was covered in stars just as when He spoke our planet into existence there were uncounted grains of sand within the make up of our planet.
Here we need to put the brakes on. I'm familiar with the doctrine of
ex nihilo, and I basically agree in the sense that God created everything. He didn't take existing material that was not of His making and form a universe from that. However, people always have to add ridiculous extremes to these ideas. Why is that?
So, do not assume a Bible verse is a complete explanation of everything. The verses (Genesis 1:14-19) are:
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
Do I believe that? Yes.
Do I believe those verses completely encapsulate everything that happened as God created stars? No.
Do I believe there are things we can learn from observing the stars? Yes.
But in the end, I am like you. IMO Genesis is history. If the "scientific" explanation leads people to tell me Genesis is not history, then I am willing to explain why I think they are wrong.
I'm just trying to avoid a message of, "It's a miracle. You'll never figure it out. Give up." For some people that doesn't work, and I am one of those people.