Creation Miracles

[mindlight]

Jesus performed a number of miracles which seem to involve ex nihilo creation. So for example the feeding of the multitude miracles.

(Matthew 14:13–21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:5-15)
-Feeding of 5,000
-Feeding of 4,000

I believe that the scriptures say none of the disciples did a miracle like this in Jesus name so this seems to be something distinctive to Jesus and who He was.

1) Do these miracles show ex nihilo creation?

2) If they do then are these miracles testimony to the nature of creation in the beginning as being ex nihilo.

3) If Jesus was able to create fish life ex nihilo after the the main creation event does that mean that works of creation are still being done now or possible now by Gods Holy Spirit? Can God indeed raise up stones to be Abrahams children or indeed create them out of nothing.

4) If things can be created out of nothing - what does that mean for basic laws of physics e.g. is entropy as a macro level law of the universe less meaningful if energy/matter can be reinjected into the system from an external source

5) If matter/energy in this universe can be spontaneously injected or I suppose removed from the system by acts of God then does this mean that certain observable effects of the universe could also be moderated/filtered by Divine presence e.g. the diversion of asteroids from hitting the earth the limiting of harmful solar flares or radioactive phenomena. If the possibility of life itself is contingent on such interventions e.g. without them the people starve, then does that mean that our knowledge of the universe is limited by our lack of knowledge of the overall history of Gods interventions in it.

6) Will the New Heavens and the New Earth of Revelation be a completely new work of God or a rejuvenation of the Universe in which we live. Will there be both continuity and discontinuity?

7) If the fish and loaves were new creations and therefore like Gods creation created good and perfect was this the best meal these guys ever tasted. Would you surmise there were any health benefits from eating perfect food ? or were they were quickly overcomes by the flaws of the overall systems into which they were injected.
Many of these people came to believe in Christs miraculous nature as a result of this miracle so was this meal something that parallels the Lords Supper in some way. A bread that feeds a persons soul and has the everlasting benefit of communion with the person of God Himself.

 

[Mallon]

Creation ex nihilo means creation out of nothing. In which case, I don't think the example of Jesus feeding the multitudes can be considered creation ex nihilo because he had starting materials (fish and bread) to work with. I think the term you're looking for would be creation de novo.
Interestingly, the Genesis creation account doesn't tell of creation ex nihilo, either. The water was already there before God began the task of shaping the earth (Gen 1:2). Some might find this surprising, but in light of all the other ANE creation stories floating around at the time (like Enuma Elish), it's not so unexpected -- they all feature the presence of an initial watery abyss. This is just one piece of evidence that leads me to believe the Genesis creation account is not record of actual historical events (although the first Hebrews may have believed it as such). Jesus feeding the multitudes, however, was witnessed by many people and does not share its motifs with other ANE mythologies. It is clearly an historical account, and as such, a very different type of literature than that presented in Genesis. Therefore, I don't think we can use the former to elucidate creation presented in the latter.

 

[busterdog]

Creation ex nihilo means creation out of nothing. In which case, I don't think the example of Jesus feeding the multitudes can be considered creation ex nihilo because he had starting materials (fish and bread) to work with. I think the term you're looking for would be creation de novo.
Interestingly, the Genesis creation account doesn't tell of creation ex nihilo, either. The water was already there before God began the task of shaping the earth (Gen 1:2). Some might find this surprising, but in light of all the other ANE creation stories floating around at the time (like Enuma Elish), it's not so unexpected -- they all feature the presence of an initial watery abyss. This is just one piece of evidence that leads me to believe the Genesis creation account is not record of actual historical events (although the first Hebrews may have believed it as such). Jesus feeding the multitudes, however, was witnessed by many people and does not share its motifs with other ANE mythologies. It is clearly an historical account, and as such, a very different type of literature than that presented in Genesis. Therefore, I don't think we can use the former to elucidate creation presented in the latter.

????

God is always something, not nothing. Isnt your view suggesting strict conditions of "nothing" that can't exist. For example, there are four possibilities for the coin in the fish's mouth:

1. The coin was created from "nothing"
2. The coin was created from fish spit.
3. The fish had been waiting months for vomit up the coin it had picked up on a lark and Jesus just had a knack for spotting sickly fish appearing heavier than they should have been.
4. The story really means that a generous guy named Fishman happened to have a few extra denarii and be in the right place at the right time.

1 & 2 are indistinguishable as "ex nihilo" creation.

The distinction between 1/2 and 3/4 is really the issue. Relative to a perfectly natural explanation, like Mr. Fishman, the silver coin is more or less created out of thin air.

The OP is for creation "for all intents and purposes" out of nothing, isnt it?

What the OP then gets us to is the distinction between:

1. Things being created "out of nothing" by JEsus speaking in the Gospels, and for which the only evidence we have is the Scripture, since a bottle of Perrier sitting for 100 years and never becoming wine is not evidence of anything.

2. Evidence from (allegedly) very, very old rock suggesting that God was not speaking the same way at the time of creation, though he certainly could have had he wanted to.

 

[Mallon]

God is always something, not nothing. Isnt your view suggesting strict conditions of "nothing" that can't exist.

No, because I'm not suggesting the Lord created the universe out of Himself.

For example, there are four possibilities for the coin in the fish's mouth:

Why are you suddenly talking about the coin in the fish's mouth? mindlight and I were referring specifically to Jesus feeding the multitudes, which I don't think would technically satisfy the conditions of creation ex nihilo (literally "out of nothing"). I'm not saying Jesus could not create ex nihilo. I'm saying this specific example doesn't show that he did. And again, nor does Genesis 1.
Maybe you think I'm just playing semantics. Regardless, my point still stands that the narrative delivered in Mark and that delivered in Genesis are very different types of literature and one cannot be used the gauge the historical value of the other. We're talking about comparing apples and oranges.

 

[gluadys]

Jesus performed a number of miracles which seem to involve ex nihilo creation. So for example the feeding of the multitude miracles.

(Matthew 14:13–21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:5-15)
-Feeding of 5,000
-Feeding of 4,000

I believe that the scriptures say none of the disciples did a miracle like this in Jesus name so this seems to be something distinctive to Jesus and who He was.

1) Do these miracles show ex nihilo creation?

2) If they do then are these miracles testimony to the nature of creation in the beginning as being ex nihilo.

3) If Jesus was able to create fish life ex nihilo after the the main creation event does that mean that works of creation are still being done now or possible now by Gods Holy Spirit? Can God indeed raise up stones to be Abrahams children or indeed create them out of nothing.

4) If things can be created out of nothing - what does that mean for basic laws of physics e.g. is entropy as a macro level law of the universe less meaningful if energy/matter can be reinjected into the system from an external source

I am not sure if any of these examples is indisputably creation out of nothing. As Mallon mentions, the feeding of the crowds began with something. Also the texts never say specifically where the leftovers came from.
As for the large fish catches, it doesn't say the fish were created then and there. Perhaps they were simply attracted to the nets.

So without disputing the possibility of creation out of nothing as the actual cause, I don't think other possible scenarios can be ruled out.

6) Will the New Heavens and the New Earth of Revelation be a completely new work of God or a rejuvenation of the Universe in which we live. Will there be both continuity and discontinuity?

Absolutely there must be continuity as well as discontinuity. Otherwise there would be no place for us in the New Earth. Nor would Paul's words about creation in Romans 8 make any sense. Why would this creation be yearning for the revealing of the sons of God or expecting release from futility or experiencing birth pangs if it to be completely replaced?

John Polkinghorne, the British physicist turned theologian, suggests the difference between this cosmos and the new cosmos is that this cosmos was indeed created ex nihilo, from nothing. But the one to come will be created ex vetere, out of the old (present) one.

This would also concord with Jesus' parable about the wheat and the tares and other eschatalogical discourses. In the parable, he speaks of the weeds being gathered first and taken to be burned. And then "the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father." The key is not the removal of the righteous to someplace else, but the removal of the wicked from the world.

As an aside, this suggests the Left Behind folk have it all wrong. They envision the good being taken away and the unrighteous left behind to endure tribulation. But Jesus' words in Matthew 24 say only "one will be taken and one will be left" without suggesting which is which. If it is the "weeds" that are taken, being left behind is a blessing.

Many of these people came to believe in Christs miraculous nature as a result of this miracle so was this meal something that parallels the Lords Supper in some way. A bread that feeds a persons soul and has the everlasting benefit of communion with the person of God Himself.

That is a time-honored allegorical interpretation that goes back to the Church Fathers.

 

[busterdog]

No, because I'm not suggesting the Lord created the universe out of Himself.


Why are you suddenly talking about the coin in the fish's mouth? mindlight and I were referring specifically to Jesus feeding the multitudes, which I don't think would technically satisfy the conditions of creation ex nihilo (literally "out of nothing"). I'm not saying Jesus could not create ex nihilo. I'm saying this specific example doesn't show that he did. And again, nor does Genesis 1.
Maybe you think I'm just playing semantics. Regardless, my point still stands that the narrative delivered in Mark and that delivered in Genesis are very different types of literature and one cannot be used the gauge the historical value of the other. We're talking about comparing apples and oranges.

Quite frankly, given the laws for conservation of matter/energy, I cant see a distinction between a coin popping into existence and bread multiplying a hundredfold.

So, I am not sure what you are suggesting.

Is it that the text is sufficiently unclear that there is a natural explanation for the multiplication of the bread?

I assume that you are not going for the potluck version of the feeding of the multitude (ie, everyone brought a fish sandwich).

 

[gluadys]

Is it that the text is sufficiently unclear that there is a natural explanation for the multiplication of the bread?

The text is simply silent on the question. It is like a film where the director cuts from the disciples offering food to the first person in the crowd to the scene where they are gathering up the leftovers. No indication at all of what happened in the interval.

 

[Assyrian]

Quite frankly, given the laws for conservation of matter/energy, I cant see a distinction between a coin popping into existence and bread multiplying a hundredfold.

So, I am not sure what you are suggesting.

Is it that the text is sufficiently unclear that there is a natural explanation for the multiplication of the bread?

I assume that you are not going for the potluck version of the feeding of the multitude (ie, everyone brought a fish sandwich).

Well given the 'St Peter's fish' reputed love of bright shiny objects and carrying them in its mouth, I don't see any reason to appeal to ex nihilo creation or compare it to a miracle that exercised divine power over the laws of conservation of matter.

The nearest your four options comes to this is
3. The fish had been waiting months for vomit up the coin it had picked up on a lark and Jesus just had a knack for spotting sickly fish appearing heavier than they should have been.

Why so dismissive of God working providentially? Is it any less a work of God if he led Peter to a fish whose natural curiosity had led it to pick up a coin from the bottom of the lake?

Quite frankly, given the laws for conservation of matter/energy, I cant see a distinction between a coin popping into existence and bread multiplying a hundredfold.

It is not a question of the laws for conservation of matter/energy, it is a question of ex nihilo creation. The multiplication of the loaves does show Jesus power over the laws for conservation of matter/energy. But it is not ex nihilo creation it is ex panem et piscis. If Jesus had caused the coin to pop into existence in the fish's mouth that would be ex nihilo I suppose, except the bible does not suggest that this is what happened. I am pretty sure it is not the only coin lost in the Sea of Galilee. Ex nihilo creation is amazing but all God's works are wonderful.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks Assyrian and gluadys. You summed up my thoughts exactly.

 

[busterdog]

The text is simply silent on the question. It is like a film where the director cuts from the disciples offering food to the first person in the crowd to the scene where they are gathering up the leftovers. No indication at all of what happened in the interval.

Silent?

Well, I guess that answers that.

 

[busterdog]

Why so dismissive of God working providentially?

Because at some point you have to face the fact that scripture simply says that Jesus changes matter and reality by his voice and authority, not "providentially."

Have anyone who thinks this was "providentially" provided, rather than miraculously "ex nihilo" read these verses lately?

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2801&t=kjv

I am having a real hard time seeing that the text is "silent" on the subject. You could reason from Mark 8, in isolation, that this is not a sign miracle at all. But, that would be ignoring much of the text. And that is exactly what the word "silent" implies. The word "silent" says that the text provides nothing that would support a strong argument in favor of the creation of bread on the spot. (Causing loaves of bread to multiply without bringing in more bread from the outside, is also creation of bread on the spot.)

I don't think you guys are even reading what the Word says about it. If I try to put this story into your paradigm, I find major barriers to any notion that the twelve baskets of bread did not come from the very loaves that the apostles ate from.

Mar 8:19
When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.

 

[shernren]

Let's look at the text:

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them.

The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.
(Mark 8:6-8 NIV)

The paragraph division I have given is artificial but the point I am making will be valid even without it. The text says simply that "the people ate". Ate what? Maybe Jesus multiplied the bread and fish, and everyone ate that:

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them.
Suddenly the molecules of the air spontaneously rearranged themselves at Jesus' behest and bread and fish began to materialize even as people distributed the paltry remains of the original food amongst themselves.
The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.

Maybe, instead, we are missing a verse 7-1/2 that tells us:

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them.
Suddenly a large truck carrying twenty thousand watermelons careened off the road and spilt its contents all over the floor in front of the waiting crowd. Jesus praised God for that, too, and -
The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.

Maybe verse 7-1/2 reads:

He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them.
The crowd marveled at his faith and generosity. Some had money that they used to buy more food; some shared what they had; others thanked the people around for their graciousness; and all thanked God that He had provided them with what they had to give others.
The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.

The point is that we simply can't distinguish Scripturally between any of these possibilities (or any other). Any story that fulfills the Scriptural requirements that the crowd went home full, praising God, and there was enough left over for the disciples to retrieve, is credible, if not certain. I personally lean towards the first, of course, for aesthetic reasons; but I would not be terribly disappointed to get to heaven only to find out that Jesus was really a lot more practical than my mysticism would desire.

And who might you be to tell God that He is not allowed to prove Himself unless through miracle? Human generosity is also a creation of God, after all; and it is far more impressive to me than any suspension of natural laws you could conceive.

 

[busterdog]

The paragraph division I have given is artificial but the point I am making will be valid even without it. The text says simply that "the people ate". Ate what? Maybe Jesus multiplied the bread and fish, and everyone ate that:

Lets get serious. No more fooling around Jesus makes the direct comparison for five loaves and twelve baskets.

What is in view: A TE position that the text is silent on the issue of whether 12 baskets came from 5 loaves.

You are not serious. I can just as well say that Scotty beamed down 12 baskets from the starship Entrprise or that Jesus was dealing with microscopic baskets and the multitude ate nothing but a crumb each and were simply very content.

Mar 8:19
When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.

The plain text says 12 loaves came from 5 baskets.

No text is immune from insertion of new content.

Lets just be clear that this is what you are doing and that the surface text at the very least provides sufficient evidence for the conclusion that this was a creative miracle.

And who might you be to tell God that He is not allowed to prove Himself unless through miracle? Human generosity is also a creation of God, after all; and it is far more impressive to me than any suspension of natural laws you could conceive.

Yeah, you would like me to say that wouldn't you?

On several areas (not in this thread), I have taken the position that "providential" miracles are clearly in view. So, lets not start the straw man thing please. I have a focus on a particular text and position.

The immediate issue is whether the text is "silent" about the creative miracle, which is a very hardcore and unproveable position.

Lets hear it from the TEs. I want them to say, yes Jesus could have made bread spontaneously come into existence from nothing and the text could support that view. I am pretty sure that this is the prevailing TE view. I hope I am not wrong.

"Human generosity ... is more impressive." As a general statement, that would be about the biggest steamer I have seen on CF in a while. No, actually Gods ability to provide is always far more impressive than anything man can do. If generosity is more impressive to you, God help you.

I need a good laugh now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434


Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

 

[Assyrian]

Because at some point you have to face the fact that scripture simply says that Jesus changes matter and reality by his voice and authority, not "providentially."

Have anyone who thinks this was "providentially" provided, rather than miraculously "ex nihilo" read these verses lately?

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2801&t=kjv

I am having a real hard time seeing that the text is "silent" on the subject. You could reason from Mark 8, in isolation, that this is not a sign miracle at all. But, that would be ignoring much of the text. And that is exactly what the word "silent" implies. The word "silent" says that the text provides nothing that would support a strong argument in favor of the creation of bread on the spot. (Causing loaves of bread to multiply without bringing in more bread from the outside, is also creation of bread on the spot.)

I don't think you guys are even reading what the Word says about it. If I try to put this story into your paradigm, I find major barriers to any notion that the twelve baskets of bread did not come from the very loaves that the apostles ate from.

Mar 8:19
When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.

You are still doing it, the very fact you need to put brackets around "providentially" shows how much you think it is a second rate mode of God's work. Worse, you see it as a rival and a threat to God's supernatural works and in an attempt to defend the supernatural miracles you exclude God from operating through natural processes too.

Did you even read which miracle I described as providential? It was the coin in the fishes mouth. Why do you think God had to miraculously create a coin in a fish's mouth when the fish could pick it up from the bottom of the lake?

But if you read what I wrote, I said Jesus showed miraculous power over the laws of nature when he fed the 5,000. First there were just a couple of loaves and fish, then there was enough to feed thousands. I don't know how Jesus did it, but I know it was a pretty amazing miracle. But why is God's power over nature threatened by the fact he can also work through natural processes too. If God lead a small fish to swallow a coin, then some bait, you think it somehow denies his ability to multiple bread and fish on another occasions? It doesn't make sense busterdog.

Why do creationists think ex nihilo creation is the only way God can operate miraculously? If Jesus began with five loaves and two fish, then it is not ex nihilo. He did not start with nothing. He did things to make that bread and fish into enough to feed 5,000 which no natural process can accomplish, but it wasn't ex nihilo creation because he did not start from nihil nothing. He started from bread and fish.

Somehow ex nihilo creation has become a buzz phrase among creationists and every time God does anything creative or the bible uses the word bara they think it has to be ex nihilo. They think they are defending creation this way. Instead they end up denying Gods power to operate in any other way.

 

[gluadys]

I am having a real hard time seeing that the text is "silent" on the subject. You could reason from Mark 8, in isolation, that this is not a sign miracle at all.

I don't know if you inadvertently put in both the words "sign" and "miracle" or not, but it does provide another thought. The Greek word we normally translate "miracle" is 'semeion' which means "sign". ("Miracle" in turn comes from Latin and is derived from a Latin term that means "look!" It implies some sort of thing/event worth looking at, a wonder, a marvel of some sort.)

So, "sign" of what? Sign of God's power, God's presence, God's care. Sign that God acts for his people.

What 'semeion' and its Hebrew and Latin equivalents do not inherently suggest is "not natural" or "beyond natural". IOW, the providential recruiting of natural forces to accomplish God's will can be just as much a sign of God's power, presence and care as any bending or overwhelming of the laws of nature. Just as much a "miracle" in biblical terms, though today we tend to restrict "miracle" to the latter meaning.

The word "silent" says that the text provides nothing that would support a strong argument in favor of the creation of bread on the spot.

And for that matter, it provides no strong argument against the creation of bread on the spot either.

When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.

And quite interestingly, Jesus does NOT say "when I multiplied the five loaves" but "when I brake the five loaves.." exactly matching the text describing the feeding of the crowd.

Lets just be clear that this is what you are doing and that the surface text at the very least provides sufficient evidence for the conclusion that this was a creative miracle.

It is certainly clear that this was a 'semeion'. But does "sign" mean what "miracle" means in a science-imbued culture? Perhaps we should place less emphasis on the methodology of signs and more on the purpose of signs.

Human generosity is also a creation of God, after all; and it is far more impressive to me than any suspension of natural laws you could conceive.

As a general statement, that would be about the biggest steamer I have seen on CF in a while.

In the case of another sign, Jesus asked the skeptical Pharisees "Which is easier, to forgive sins or to say to this paralytic 'Take up your bed and walk'?"

In parallel fashion we can ask "Which is the greater miracle: the multiplication of loaves or the multiplication of generosity?"

Lets hear it from the TEs. I want them to say, yes Jesus could have made bread spontaneously come into existence from nothing and the text could support that view. I am pretty sure that this is the prevailing TE view. I hope I am not wrong.

Of course he could, and that probably is the prevailing TE view. TEs have no more objection to supernatural miracles than you do to providential miracles. But we are perhaps a little less inclined to think we know for certain which is which.

 

[Assyrian]

In the case of another sign, Jesus asked the skeptical Pharisees "Which is easier, to forgive sins or to say to this paralytic 'Take up your bed and walk'?"

In parallel fashion we can ask "Which is the greater miracle: the multiplication of loaves or the multiplication of generosity?"

I always though it was easier to say 'your sins are forgiven'. If you say 'Take up your bed and walk' people expect to see the result.

 

[gluadys]

I always though it was easier to say 'your sins are forgiven'. If you say 'Take up your bed and walk' people expect to see the result.

By the same token I have always considered the multiplication of generosity to be much more difficult to pull off than a multiplication of loaves.

But perhaps no such comparison exists for deity. I expect Jesus' point is that one is as easy as the other. And one is just as much under his authority as the other.

One way or another the take home message is that when we offer to share our bread there is enough for all.

 

[busterdog]

You are still doing it, the very fact you need to put brackets around "providentially" shows how much you think it is a second rate mode of God's work. Worse, you see it as a rival and a threat to God's supernatural works and in an attempt to defend the supernatural miracles you exclude God from operating through natural processes too.

We all have the right to make choices about our beliefs. We may be judged for bad choices certainly.

I have been trying not to make this about personal choices.

If you read carefully what I said, it is really that the text itself should strongly caution anyone against saying the text is "silent" on the issue of a creative miracle with the multitude. As a position on scripture, it is reckless.

If you want to take the position that ordinary experience suggests a providential miracle, rather than a creative one, then alll we can do is "witness" to you. No one can win that argument with you, just as you will never win the inerranncy argument with me.

If you want to say I believe wrongfuly, that's fine, though I don't think you understand what I think about providence. But that is not the point of the dispute, as I see it. I am not going to argue much about where "providential" stands in the pecking order, except to say that the "providential" creation of a land bridge in anticipation of Moses standing at the red sea was a fine piece of work, and quite a supernatural piece of "providence". But, that is not the feeding of the 5,000.

Jesus said himself that the multitude had no food. Then they had a few loaves. Then they were full. Then they took up 12 baskets. Then he admonished the apostles not to be concerned about bread after God had just created 12 baskets of leftovers from a few loaves.

If you want to chuck the text, then just say it. But, don't say the text is silent. Jesus made about about 99.9% of the bread in evidence that day by his Word and presence. That is at least virtually "ex nihilo", or "ex nihilo" enough for me.

Can we all agree that the surface text is not "silent" on where the bread came from? Does the surface text not say about as well as it can be said that Jesus created the bread on the spot?

 

[busterdog]

Let's look at the text:

* * *

And who might you be to tell God that He is not allowed to prove Himself unless through miracle? Human generosity is also a creation of God, after all; and it is far more impressive to me than any suspension of natural laws you could conceive.

Mat 15:32¶Then Jesus called his disciples [unto him], and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.

Mar 6:36 Send them away, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy themselves bread: for they have nothing to eat.

Mar 8:1 In those days the multitude being very great, and having nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples [unto him], and saith unto them,

Mar 8:2 I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat:

It simply does not follow that fidelity to the text is disparagement of "providential" miracles.

This is what the text says. All the arguments against me here are assuming I am disparaging something for which the text gives license.

 

[gluadys]

It simply does not follow that fidelity to the text is disparagement of "providential" miracles.

This is what the text says. All the arguments against me here are assuming I am disparaging something for which the text gives license.

Although I think the text does permit a providential miracle, I will not argue that this is the case, or even a possibility. I am quite comfortable with the interpretation that the loaves were indeed multiplied. What I am not comfortable with is making this a salient point of the story.

I think it may be worthwhile asking why the text is silent on the methodology of the miracle. Perhaps to tell us that the methodology is not what is important. What is important is that the disciples (or one boy with a lunch) offered what they had. And all were fed.

Maybe the few loaves blest by Jesus were all that was available. Maybe it was all the food that was visibly offered. Maybe a merchant with a plentiful supply did happen by. Or maybe an angel brought down bread from heaven. I don't think it really matters which was the case.

What matters is that bread was shared in faith and all were fed.