Evidence for Miracles?

[mark kennedy]

Like you can't have legal evidence for a violation of the law? Even if science cannot explain the events, why can't science study results and say if they are real? Could a medical examination of the blind man Jesus healed tell if he could actually see or not? Or if he was still walking into walls could you still claim it is a miracle because miracles are outside scientific study? Of course we hit a second problem here, many events cannot be studied scientifically now because the evidence for this miracle is long gone, but the evidence was there to examine at the time and the Pharisees carried out a thorough investigation.

But some events are bigger and have left plenty of evidence. Science could not explain how the world was formed in six days a few thousand years ago. But science can tell us if the world is just six thousand years old or not. The evidence for the world being billions of years old tells us as much about the miracle of a young earth creation as the blind man walking into walls would have said about the miracle of his healing.

Let's not forget there must be a clear set of rules of demonstrating whether the account of an historical narrative is true. The fact that often escapes theistic evolutionists and other skeptics is that we are not offering the Scriptures contrary to actual evidence. We proclaim it as actual evidence, here are the rule of evidence applied to the New Testament:

Applying the Fundamental Rules of Evidence:
1. Sufficient Probability That Their Testimony is True
2. Establishing Truth by Competent and Satisfactory Evidence
3. Tests for Credibility:

• Their Honesty
• Their Ability
• Number and Consistency of Their Testimony
• Conformity of Their Testimony with Experience
• Coincidence of Their Testimony with Collateral and Contemporaneous Facts and Circumstances

4. Acquiring the Value and Force of Demonstrations (Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf)​

The fact of the matter is, that the Scriptures are redemptive history, based on credible witnesses, to actual events that include miracles are the subject matter of these narratives. It is a little unsettling that you have to be reminded of it so often.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Let's not forget there must be a clear set of rules of demonstrating whether the account of an historical narrative is true. The fact that often escapes theistic evolutionists and other skeptics is that we are not offering the Scriptures contrary to actual evidence. We proclaim it as actual evidence, here are the rule of evidence applied to the New Testament:

Applying the Fundamental Rules of Evidence:
1. Sufficient Probability That Their Testimony is True
2. Establishing Truth by Competent and Satisfactory Evidence
3. Tests for Credibility:

• Their Honesty
• Their Ability
• Number and Consistency of Their Testimony
• Conformity of Their Testimony with Experience
• Coincidence of Their Testimony with Collateral and Contemporaneous Facts and Circumstances

4. Acquiring the Value and Force of Demonstrations (Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf)​

The fact of the matter is, that the Scriptures are redemptive history, based on credible witnesses, to actual events that include miracles are the subject matter of these narratives.

Ok...

It is a little unsettling that you have to be reminded of it so often.

Have a nice day
Mark

Don't know why you would be unsettled by the idea Jesus' miracles were testable at the time. That is what Peter and John did when they heard about the resurrection, they ran to the tomb to see if it was true. It is what Jesus was doing he said Luke 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." If a miracle is real it has real results in the real world and these results can be examined.

 

[Assyrian]

Finally someone steps up with an example! So let's run with this one and see where it leads.

A medical examiner examines a man's eyes and they show no evidence of disease. He has perfect 20/20. A crowd claims he was miraculously healed. Does the examiner trust the crowd and declare a miracle, or simple explain that science proves this man has a history of good sight?

The fact is, if the man indeed was healed, his eyes would give a false historical impression to scientists studying them. For there would not be a note on this eyes reading "Hi! I'm a pair of eyes that used to be blind, but I was just healed by a miracle a short while ago!" Sorry it doesn't work that way. If his eyes were truly restored, scientists would have no way of determining a past miracle had taken place. They would merely have to assume (a priori) that his eye history was normal, and assume that he was like every other man with normal healthy eyes today.

Indeed, to the scientific uniformitarian mind, his eyes would be giving off a false history.

Now, what about the witnesses? Well, what if hundreds of witness corroborated the story the he was blind and was healed by a miracle? Would that be good evidence? Absolutely! Would it be scientific evidence? Of course not. Would it be valid evidence? You bet!

I would challenge you to come up with a dozen more examples like this. We'll go through them one by one, and I'll show you how miracles create false views of history every single time.

I agree to establish what happened you need evidence from before the miracle, and they used eyewitness evidence evidence for that, not only could the man see, before he met Jesus he had been blind. But it isn't because science is blind to events when miracles happen, but simply because they didn't have the scientific equipment or medical records that could have established whether he had been blind too. The problem for creationism is that science can study the history of the earth long before the supposed creation in 4004 BC. Jesus turned water into wine, but he did not creat a paper trail of receipts, invoices, shipping records and bank transfers. He did not create seals on the water jars, mark them with an inscription saying wine and the name of the vineyard owner and he did not transform the water jars into amphoras. Why would he? That would simply be creating evidence to contradict the miracle.

 

[chilehed]

Just to clarify, there can't be scientific evidence for miracles which are by nature, violations of science...

That's absolute, complete and utter nonsense.

There's no difference between an accurate observation in a lab and an accurate observation anywhere else.

Or do you think that if you watch a dead guy and he stays dead, that's a scientific observation, and if you watch him and he comes back to life, that's not a scientific observation?

 

[miamited]

hi chilehead,

Just curious, but you posted: That's absolute, complete and utter nonsense.
In reply to calminian's post. Would you be open enough to write out for us your definition of the word 'miracle' and give two or three examples of what you would call miraculous events?

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok...


Don't know why you would be unsettled by the idea Jesus' miracles were testable at the time. That is what Peter and John did when they heard about the resurrection, they ran to the tomb to see if it was true. It is what Jesus was doing he said Luke 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." If a miracle is real it has real results in the real world and these results can be examined.

Don't know what you mean by testable, probably doesn't matter. Things can be directly observed or demonstrated and when it comes to historical events that is often done through indirect means. If you want an inductive approach to say, 'creation', the only source that matters is the Creator. However, when it comes to the reliability of the the truth or falseness of the New Testament witness, it comes down to the credibility of the authors.

I'm not unsettled, as a matter of fact, the matter was settled for me early in my Christian walk. I looked into the veracity of Scripture and find the skepticism of modernists to be without merit. The same situation exists with the Old Testament in general and specifically the account of Genesis on creation. The fact is that it is an historical narrative taken down from the source of the creation Himself, the Creator. That, of course, gets into whether or not Moses is credible as a prophet and whether or not you regard the historicity of the Old Testament as genuine.

That requires a standard of proof, why theistic evolutionists are oblivious to this obvious fact remains a mystery. At least to me.

 

[mark kennedy]

hi chilehead,

Just curious, but you posted: That's absolute, complete and utter nonsense.
In reply to calminian's post. Would you be open enough to write out for us your definition of the word 'miracle' and give two or three examples of what you would call miraculous events?

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Mt 22:29)

That word is transliterated 'Dunamis', from which we get the word dynamite. There are others so if you need a definition for a miracle then decide what kind of a miracle you mean. This is one of my personal favorites.

And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes? (Mark 5:30)​

This word was used to speak of the power of God in the LXX (The Jewish translation from the Hebrew to Greek). The word used for 'power' and 'virtue' is a key concept in the New Testament. There are sufficient resources available to any serious person wanting to know how a miracle is defined. What is more the creation is inextricably linked to the resurrection and the return of Christ. This is more then a semantics exercise, this is the essence of the Gospel.

What theistic evolutionist fail to understand is that Creationism is a New Testament doctrine, inextricably linked to the resurrection, the return of Christ and the sanctification of believers aka, being 'born again' (John 3:3, 16). If you would know this power the dictionary definitions for this word and other words that describe 'miracles' are available to you. The clear message of the New Testament is not only that they happened but that this power is available to you by faith.

We are not talking here about some small matter of a difference of opinion regarding the meaning of some obscure passage. We are talking about the heart of New Testament theism and the power of God demonstrated both in the past, present and very near future. The theistic evolutionists on here should, at the very least, take note of it and refrain from this scathing skepticism that poisons the well 'science' for so many Christians.

 

[miamited]

Thanks Mark, but the comment was directed to chilehead.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks Mark, but the comment was directed to chilehead.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

I know, but good working definitions is a pet peeve of mine, couldn't resist.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[chilehed]

hi chilehead,

Just curious, but you posted: That's absolute, complete and utter nonsense.
In reply to calminian's post. Would you be open enough to write out for us your definition of the word 'miracle' and give two or three examples of what you would call miraculous events?

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

To what end would you have me provide a definition of miracle when the subject of my comment was the term scientific evidence?

 

[Calminian]

That's absolute, complete and utter nonsense.

There's no difference between an accurate observation in a lab and an accurate observation anywhere else.

Indeed, an event is an event. Problem is, we don't just stop with the observation, we then make predictions for the future, and attempt to discern the past from present observations. We assume patterns of nature, and rely on those inform us. Science is inductive. By its very nature, it must assume uniformity in nature and preclude miraculous interventions by God. I'm in agree with this methodology, BTW. I don't want scientists assuming interventions by their own versions of various God's. At the same time, as a theist, I have to admit, that uniformitarian presuppositions are not always correct. There are times, which God acts in miraculous ways, that are non-uniform. I am of the opinion that the Genesis account of creation explicitly and implicitly reveals God created the world miraculously.

Or do you think that if you watch a dead guy and he stays dead, that's a scientific observation, and if you watch him and he comes back to life, that's not a scientific observation?

That would be an observation. Now mind you your example is different from mine as you are saying they observed the actual resurrection. In my example, they viewed healed eyes after the fact.

What we infer from you hypothetical observation would be an entirely different matter. If we witnessed multiple resurrections after 3 days, medical science would conclude men can and do come back to life after 3 days. If it was only observed once and never again, then it would not be something they could test and replicate. Thus, they would conclude it to be an anomaly. It's likely they would come to the conclusion that equipment may have malfunctioned, and the person in question was not really dead.

They certainly would not conclude this person was resurrected by a miracle of God.

 

[chilehed]

Indeed, an event is an event.

Exactly. Every real event is a real event, and every accurate observation is an observation.

And accurate observations are evidence.

Problem is, we don't just stop with the observation, we then make predictions for the future, and attempt to discern the past from present observations...

Now you're talking about what we do with evidence, the various methods by which we might evaluate it.

But what we do with the evidence has no bearing on how accurate the evidence is.

There's no such thing as "scientific evidence" and "non-scientific evidence". There is only evidence.


I'm reminded of the false maxim that "you can prove anything with statistics".

EDIT: Just read your example about a healing of vision. How about this: I subject a test coupon of cast magnesium to failure under some cyclic load reversal, and document the test results that at X cycles it was found to have developed a fatigue fracture Y mm deep. I imagine that you'd concede that that's scientific evidence.
Then I remelt the mag and recast the coupon to the original condition. Are you going to claim that my test report is now no longer scientific evidence, on the grounds that no test can reveal the earlier existance of the crack?

 

[Calminian]

Exactly. Every real event is a real event, and every accurate observation is an observation.

And accurate observations are evidence.


Now you're talking about what we do with evidence, the various methods by which we might evaluate it.

But what we do with the evidence has no bearing on how accurate the evidence is.

Testimonial evidence evaluation is very logical, but not scientific, as in inductive science. In other words the approach is a deductive one, rather than an inductive one.

When interrogators separate witnesses, and their testimonies still corroborate, this is very good evidence that they are telling the truth, as the statistical probability of them concocting the same story is astronomical. The more corroborating witnesses, the stronger the case. History is often discerned the same way. We actually don't have any scientific evidence that Alexander the Great ever lived. Yet, we have ample written testimonial evidence to say with certain he is not a fictional character.

Courts of law have a very strict procedure for evaluating testimonial evidence. It can be very powerful, and even overturn some scientific arguments, especially if corroborating testimonies show an altering or manipulating of the data.

There's no such thing as "scientific evidence" and "non-scientific evidence". There is only evidence.

You are simply wrong about this.

 

[Assyrian]

Don't know what you mean by testable, probably doesn't matter. Things can be directly observed or demonstrated and when it comes to historical events that is often done through indirect means.

Nearly everything in science is studied and established by indirect means, from Eratosthenes working out the curvature of the earth to the double helix of DNA and subatomic particles.

If you want an inductive approach to say, 'creation', the only source that matters is the Creator. However, when it comes to the reliability of the the truth or falseness of the New Testament witness, it comes down to the credibility of the authors.

Credibility of witnesses works on different levels, not just are they honest but could they be mistaken. That is why the NT witnesses were keen to show that their testimony was real and not an illusion, hence their telling us not only that they saw Jesus but that he ate fish, that the tomb was empty. It is why they told us not only that Jesus healed the man but that the Pharisees investigated it to see if he really had been blind. The gospel don't just show us the apostles were convinced but that they took some convincing.

I'm not unsettled,

Yes I thought it was rhetorical.

as a matter of fact, the matter was settled for me early in my Christian walk. I looked into the veracity of Scripture and find the skepticism of modernists to be without merit. The same situation exists with the Old Testament in general and specifically the account of Genesis on creation. The fact is that it is an historical narrative taken down from the source of the creation Himself, the Creator. That, of course, gets into whether or not Moses is credible as a prophet and whether or not you regard the historicity of the Old Testament as genuine.

That requires a standard of proof, why theistic evolutionists are oblivious to this obvious fact remains a mystery. At least to me.

You are in a different situation with the creation. Jesus commissioned his disciples as witnesses, which means the gospels contain their witness testimony. But we don't treat everything Jesus said himself as witness testimony, after all he said he was a grapevine. It is truth, just not literal. You cannot just assume God molding Adam from mud is God's witness testimony on a par with the witness testimony of the gospel because God speaks in metaphor too, and God as a potter making people from clay is a common biblical metaphor. So if science shows us that mankind evolved over million so years, it doesn't mean scripture is wrong, just the literal interpretation of it. If you realise the creation accounts are a prophetic revelation, then why would you mistake it for a historical narrative? God's prophetic revelations are full of metaphor and symbolism. Look at how God describes their real history by personifying Israel in the song of Jeshurun in Deut 32&33 or Jerusalem and her sisters in Ezekiel 16. Jesus spoke the history and future of Israel in parables too. Genesis may be God speaking truth, but that doesn't mean it is his literal witness testimony.

 

[chilehed]

Testimonial evidence evaluation is very logical, but not scientific, as in inductive science. In other words the approach is a deductive one, rather than an inductive one.

Again, you're confusing evidence with the method by which one evaluates the evidence. The decision to use induction vs deduction does not change the nature of the evidence.

You are simply wrong about this.

You've chosen to ignore responses that demonstrate the flaws in your reasoning. I see no reason to continue here.

 

[mark kennedy]

Nearly everything in science is studied and established by indirect means, from Eratosthenes working out the curvature of the earth to the double helix of DNA and subatomic particles.

Nearly everything in science is based on directly observed or demonstrated phenomenon. That's absurd. Genetics was not really considered a science until molecular biology and genetics had the commonality they needed, the DNA double helix. The inductive approach can make determinations about the whole group based on a subset of the group when it can be safely assumed commonality.

Some times I think you guys just tell me something blatantly false just to run me in circles with it.

Credibility of witnesses works on different levels, not just are they honest but could they be mistaken. That is why the NT witnesses were keen to show that their testimony was real and not an illusion, hence their telling us not only that they saw Jesus but that he ate fish, that the tomb was empty. It is why they told us not only that Jesus healed the man but that the Pharisees investigated it to see if he really had been blind. The gospel don't just show us the apostles were convinced but that they took some convincing.

There is such a thing as rules for evidence but I won't distract you with something substantive, your probably not interested.

Yes I thought it was rhetorical.

It was getting it twisted, just clarified that I was never unsettled in my convictions.

You are in a different situation with the creation. Jesus commissioned his disciples as witnesses, which means the gospels contain their witness testimony. But we don't treat everything Jesus said himself as witness testimony, after all he said he was a grapevine. It is truth, just not literal. You cannot just assume God molding Adam from mud is God's witness testimony on a par with the witness testimony of the gospel because God speaks in metaphor too, and God as a potter making people from clay is a common biblical metaphor.

Slow your roll chief, is this a metaphor?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:1-5)​

It's a simple question, yes or no, why or why not. I'm not assuming anything, I know the difference between figurative language, hyperbole and a literal historical narrative. Do you?

So if science shows us that mankind evolved over million so years, it doesn't mean scripture is wrong, just the literal interpretation of it.

Define 'science', I get tired of science being equivocated with skepticism.

If you realise the creation accounts are a prophetic revelation, then why would you mistake it for a historical narrative?

Here we go again, define 'prophetic revelation' and kindly tell me how it is distinctly different from an 'historical narrative'. Redemptive history is as much a part of prophetic revelation and the return of Christ or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of promise.

God's prophetic revelations are full of metaphor and symbolism.

God's prophetic revelation is full of literal history; past, present and in the very near future. Redemptive history is not a metaphor, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of promise is not symbolic, the return of Christ is not a figure of speech and I want you to tell me how metaphor and historical narrative are discerned from one another.

Look at how God describes their real history by personifying Israel in the song of Jeshurun in Deut 32&33 or Jerusalem and her sisters in Ezekiel 16. Jesus spoke the history and future of Israel in parables too. Genesis may be God speaking truth, but that doesn't mean it is his literal witness testimony.

Israel was a person, you know that right. The child of promise and when Abraham heard the promise, face down before God, he laughed. Sarah, when hearing the promise repeated laughed, because of that the child of promise was named Jacob meaning 'she laughed'. He would later be given the name Israel, want to take a wild guess as to why he received the name change and what it actually means?

Genesis is an historical narrative, that's an actual fact and it's undisputed among Christian scholars. The fact that secular sources including liberal theologians have rejected the intended meaning of this book is purely academic. It is not hard to understand the Bible, it's hard to believe it. You might find it laughable that God created all life on this planet in 6 days. It won't seem so funny when he does it again at the end of the age as promised in the 'prophetic revelation' of Christ and the Apostles.

Like I keep telling you guys, Creationism is a New Testament doctrine.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Nearly everything in science is based on directly observed or demonstrated phenomenon. That's absurd. Genetics was not really considered a science until molecular biology and genetics had the commonality they needed, the DNA double helix. The inductive approach can make determinations about the whole group based on a subset of the group when it can be safely assumed commonality.

Watson and Crick couldn't observe a double helix they had to find an indirect method, like nabbing Rosalind Franklin's x-ray diffraction pictures. The x-rays didn't show them what DNA looked like, just how x-rays bounced off a DNA crystal. The scatter pattern fit what they thought the x-ray diffraction pattern from a double helix should be like. Science always find other phenomena to provide indirect ways to study areas they cannot examine directly.

Some times I think you guys just tell me something blatantly false just to run me in circles with it.

There is such a thing as rules for evidence but I won't distract you with something substantive, your probably not interested.

Does it address my point?

It was getting it twisted, just clarified that I was never unsettled in my convictions.

No it was our views that unsettled you, or at least what you imagined our views were.

Slow your roll chief, is this a metaphor?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:1-5)​

It's a simple question, yes or no, why or why not. I'm not assuming anything, I know the difference between figurative language, hyperbole and a literal historical narrative. Do you?

Yes the logos was a metaphor for God the Son.

Even if it wasn't, how would that address my point that while the gospel account are witness testimony, Jesus also spoke in metaphor?

Define 'science', I get tired of science being equivocated with skepticism.

Hiding behind definitions again Mark? How about dealing with modern science showing us the earth is billions of year old, and its consequnces, if any, for our interpretation of scripture rather than trying to wriggle out of it. When science show the church the earth went round the sun, they didn't say 'define science', they didn't say elliptical orbits cannot be directly observed or that you cannot go into space and directly demonstrate Newton's law of gravity there. When science went with heliocentrism on a lot less evidence than we have for evolution and the age of the earth. When the science was settled, the church went with it. They realised it didn't mean the bible was wrong, it just mean their interpretation had been wrong.

Here we go again, define 'prophetic revelation' and kindly tell me how it is distinctly different from an 'historical narrative'. Redemptive history is as much a part of prophetic revelation and the return of Christ or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of promise.

You aren't suggesting the seven headed monsters of Revelation are as literal as the witness testimony of the gospels? Is the bride of Christ really going to marry a sheep? Are we going to transform into a cubic city and land on earth? Is this a historical narrative? Just because you join everything from Genesis to Revelation together and call it 'redemptive history' it doesn't mean all the texts are historical narratives.

God's prophetic revelation is full of literal history; past, present and in the very near future. Redemptive history is not a metaphor, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of promise is not symbolic, the return of Christ is not a figure of speech and I want you to tell me how metaphor and historical narrative are discerned from one another.

First you get over your fear of metaphors and stop forcing everything into a literalist straight jacket, because Jesus loved to use metaphors and his Father did too. Then learn from the metaphors and parables you can recognise so you can begin to tell when they are being used elsewhere. It is how Jesus taught his disciple to understand metaphor and parable.

Israel was a person, you know that right. The child of promise and when Abraham heard the promise, face down before God, he laughed. Sarah, when hearing the promise repeated laughed, because of that the child of promise was named Jacob meaning 'she laughed'. He would later be given the name Israel, want to take a wild guess as to why he received the name change and what it actually means?

And you completely ignore Jeshurun. Sure Israel was a real person, the question is, was Jeshurun a real person or was he a metaphor to describe God's dealings with, not the person Israel, but the nation of Israel. Was Jerusalem a city with walls and buildings and a large population, or was she an individual woman whose sisters were those delightful young ladies Sodom and Samaria. If Jerusalem was really a city, was God describing its literal history in the story of Jerusalem and her sisters, or was the prophetic revelaiton of Jerusalem's history a metaphor?

Genesis is an historical narrative, that's an actual fact and it's undisputed among Christian scholars.

Too many questions about the poetic aspects of Genesis 1 to say the genre is undisputed. Genesis 2 is a narrative, but historical is another question. You already recognised the creation accounts could only come through prophetic revelation. That immediately sets them apart from narrative that are the testimony of human eye witnesses. Eyewitness testimony certainly gives you literal history, but God loves to use metaphor and symbols in his prophetic revelation. You really aren't dealing with this problem Mark. You aren't dealing with how God speaks to us in his word.

The fact that secular sources including liberal theologians have rejected the intended meaning of this book is purely academic. It is not hard to understand the Bible, it's hard to believe it. You might find it laughable that God created all life on this planet in 6 days. It won't seem so funny when he does it again at the end of the age as promised in the 'prophetic revelation' of Christ and the Apostles.

It is hard to understand it too. You know, God's ways and thoughts are higher than ours. You certainly simplify things by taking everything literally but that ignores God's use of metaphors and parables, symbols and allegory. The fact you think Revelation is literally history shows how little you understand about how God speaks to us.

Like I keep telling you guys, Creationism is a New Testament doctrine.

Have a nice day
Mark

And we keep telling you that it is Creation that is the New Testament doctrine. You may be a Creationist but that doesn't make your ideas New Testament doctrine.

 

[mark kennedy]

Watson and Crick couldn't observe a double helix they had to find an indirect method, like nabbing Rosalind Franklin's x-ray diffraction pictures. The x-rays didn't show them what DNA looked like, just how x-rays bounced off a DNA crystal. The scatter pattern fit what they thought the x-ray diffraction pattern from a double helix should be like. Science always find other phenomena to provide indirect ways to study areas they cannot examine directly.

Does it address my point?

Somewhat, they did identify through demonstration if not direct observation Mendel's 'elementum', that was my point.

No it was our views that unsettled you, or at least what you imagined our views were.

It's unsettling that Christians are at odds over God as Creator, my 'views' are not 'unsettled' in the slightest.

Yes the logos was a metaphor for God the Son.

Metaphors are generally preceded by a 'like' or 'as', you'll find that most figurative language is as well. The context of John 1 is that God spoke to as by his Son, that is anything but figurative. 'By whom he also created the worlds' I might add, nothing figurative about the language there either.

Even if it wasn't, how would that address my point that while the gospel account are witness testimony, Jesus also spoke in metaphor?

Never spoke to the crowds without a parable, to his Apostles he spoke plainly much of the time. Ever read the explanation for the kingdom parables, Jesus never explained the meaning to the crowds.

Hiding behind definitions again Mark? How about dealing with modern science showing us the earth is billions of year old, and its consequnces, if any, for our interpretation of scripture rather than trying to wriggle out of it. When science show the church the earth went round the sun, they didn't say 'define science', they didn't say elliptical orbits cannot be directly observed or that you cannot go into space and directly demonstrate Newton's law of gravity there. When science went with heliocentrism on a lot less evidence than we have for evolution and the age of the earth. When the science was settled, the church went with it. They realised it didn't mean the bible was wrong, it just mean their interpretation had been wrong.

The Bible wasn't wrong about heliocentrism, it was and is silent. No core doctrines and nothing but a few verses taken out of context were ever in question. The Bible is also silent regarding physics, the laws of motion and the Y squared of gravity. Newton, by the way, had no problem defining science and neither did Aristotle for that matter. You on the other hand want to equivocate the word without the formal definition, giving the illusion of some scientific high ground. The truth is that science has a formal epistemology that was never intended to be the Darwinian transcendent naturalistic assumption atheists are so fond of.

Words in science have explicit meaning, the way you are using it is capricious and lacks the substantive basis you pretend is at odds with Creation. It's begging the question of proof on your hands and knees. I knew you wouldn't define it, you just insist on making this too easy.

You aren't suggesting the seven headed monsters of Revelation are as literal as the witness testimony of the gospels? Is the bride of Christ really going to marry a sheep? Are we going to transform into a cubic city and land on earth? Is this a historical narrative? Just because you join everything from Genesis to Revelation together and call it 'redemptive history' it doesn't mean all the texts are historical narratives.

I suggested nothing of the sort, the beast is you. Collectively the beast with 8 heads 'like' lions are revealed as 'people, nations, tongues, people...etc. More correctly the Beast that rises out of the sea is us, sinful humanity in open rebellion against God. I have done a fair number of expositions of the book of Revelations. You don't seem to appreciate that I have studied both the philosophy and history of science as well as examined the Scriptures in detail. Which is something you should try some time.

First you get over your fear of metaphors and stop forcing everything into a literalist straight jacket, because Jesus loved to use metaphors and his Father did too. Then learn from the metaphors and parables you can recognise so you can begin to tell when they are being used elsewhere. It is how Jesus taught his disciple to understand metaphor and parable.

I'm not afraid of literary features, that's just silly. Unlike you I know the difference between an historical narrative and a metaphor and fully realize that there are rules for that kind of exegetical analysis. Christian scholars have been doing this for centuries and Genesis is understood as an historical narrative and Christ is worshiped as the literal Creator. So why don't you get over your fear of man rather then the God who created the heavens and the earth.

And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,

Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty;
just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name?
for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee;
for thy judgments are made manifest. (Rev. 15:3,4)​

And you completely ignore Jeshurun. Sure Israel was a real person, the question is, was Jeshurun a real person or was he a metaphor to describe God's dealings with, not the person Israel, but the nation of Israel. Was Jerusalem a city with walls and buildings and a large population, or was she an individual woman whose sisters were those delightful young ladies Sodom and Samaria. If Jerusalem was really a city, was God describing its literal history in the story of Jerusalem and her sisters, or was the prophetic revelaiton of Jerusalem's history a metaphor?

You completely ignored my discussion of Israel and Abraham as well as the rules of sound exposition, so we're even.

Too many questions about the poetic aspects of Genesis 1 to say the genre is undisputed. Genesis 2 is a narrative, but historical is another question. You already recognised the creation accounts could only come through prophetic revelation. That immediately sets them apart from narrative that are the testimony of human eye witnesses. Eyewitness testimony certainly gives you literal history, but God loves to use metaphor and symbols in his prophetic revelation. You really aren't dealing with this problem Mark. You aren't dealing with how God speaks to us in his word.

No, you are not dealing with how God speaks to us in his Word, that much is obvious. The Genesis account is expressed as an historical narrative in no uncertain terms and you know that by now. I've seen you try to twist things you don't like about the message to fit into the Darwinian Bible box before and it doesn't work. Rome doesn't get to decide the meaning of Scripture and neither do atheistic materialists. God must be worshiped as Creator, that is the first paragraph of the Nicean Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]​

The incarnation and the Creation come before even the cross and the resurrection, why do you think that is?

It is hard to understand it too. You know, God's ways and thoughts are higher than ours. You certainly simplify things by taking everything literally but that ignores God's use of metaphors and parables, symbols and allegory. The fact you think Revelation is literally history shows how little you understand about how God speaks to us.

I understand the Revelation well enough, care to do an exposition for me? I know how metaphor is used and the Creation, Incarnation and the coming of Christ in power and glory are very literal Assyrian!

And we keep telling you that it is Creation that is the New Testament doctrine. You may be a Creationist but that doesn't make your ideas New Testament doctrine.

I am not unsettled, I am appalled. You have disparaged a belief in Creation, the Incarnation and the return of Christ with reckless abandon and still have the nerve to preach to me about New Testament doctrine. You should be ashamed.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Somewhat, they did identify through demonstration if not direct observation Mendel's 'elementum', that was my point.

You mean Mendel's genetics was established science before there was any possibility of direct observation too?

It's unsettling that Christians are at odds over God as Creator, my 'views' are not 'unsettled' in the slightest.

So it is your view about your fellow believers that unsettles you. That is what I thought. But since we all agree God is the Creator, you are still being unsettled by a figment of you imagination.

Metaphors are generally preceded by a 'like' or 'as',

That would be a simile. Of course God uses both.

you'll find that most figurative language is as well.

Only when you exclude all the figurative language that doesn't come with handy labels like 'like' 'as' or 'parable'.

The context of John 1 is that God spoke to as by his Son, that is anything but figurative. 'By whom he also created the worlds' I might add, nothing figurative about the language there either.

Of course Christ is the one who created everything. It is calling him 'the word' that is the metaphor. Jesus is God eternal, the second person of the Trinity, not a verbal message.

Never spoke to the crowds without a parable, to his Apostles he spoke plainly much of the time. Ever read the explanation for the kingdom parables, Jesus never explained the meaning to the crowds.

What has that got to do with my point that Jesus' parables and metaphors are not the same as witness testimony?

The Bible wasn't wrong about heliocentrism, it was and is silent. No core doctrines and nothing but a few verses taken out of context were ever in question. The Bible is also silent regarding physics, the laws of motion and the Y squared of gravity.

You might think so now, but it isn't what people thought for the first 1500 years of church history. Their literal interpretation of the geocentric passages said it was the sun was moving round the earth. It was their interpretation of scripture that was challenged by science of the day. And their response was to go back to scripture and find a new interpretation. Creationists would be wise to do the same.

Newton, by the way, had no problem defining science and neither did Aristotle for that matter. You on the other hand want to equivocate the word without the formal definition, giving the illusion of some scientific high ground. The truth is that science has a formal epistemology that was never intended to be the Darwinian transcendent naturalistic assumption atheists are so fond of.

Words in science have explicit meaning, the way you are using it is capricious and lacks the substantive basis you pretend is at odds with Creation. It's begging the question of proof on your hands and knees. I knew you wouldn't define it, you just insist on making this too easy.

If you want to redefine science to exclude the sciences you don't like, then come up with the definition yourself. I am happy to use science in its normal modern sense.

I suggested nothing of the sort, the beast is you. Collectively the beast with 8 heads 'like' lions are revealed as 'people, nations, tongues, people...etc. More correctly the Beast that rises out of the sea is us, sinful humanity in open rebellion against God. I have done a fair number of expositions of the book of Revelations. You don't seem to appreciate that I have studied both the philosophy and history of science as well as examined the Scriptures in detail. Which is something you should try some time.

So the last book describing the completion of redemption history isn't literal history, it is a figurative. Why would you think redemption history means Genesis has to be literal?

I'm not afraid of literary features, that's just silly. Unlike you I know the difference between an historical narrative and a metaphor and fully realize that there are rules for that kind of exegetical analysis. Christian scholars have been doing this for centuries and Genesis is understood as an historical narrative and Christ is worshiped as the literal Creator. So why don't you get over your fear of man rather then the God who created the heavens and the earth.

And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,

Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty;
just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name?
for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee;
for thy judgments are made manifest. (Rev. 15:3,4)​

That 'song of the lamb' would be a metaphor wouldn't it?

You completely ignored my discussion of Israel and Abraham as well as the rules of sound exposition, so we're even.

No I showed you how God described the history of Israel in metaphors like Jeshurun, and Jerusalem and her sisters. You said Israel were real persons and I agreed with you, but it didn't change the fact God described their history in metaphor. This is where your fear of metaphor really kicks in. I show you how God loves to speak in parables and metaphor about real things and you cling to the real thing for dear life thinking that can make the big bad metaphor God spoke go away.

No, you are not dealing with how God speaks to us in his Word, that much is obvious. The Genesis account is expressed as an historical narrative in no uncertain terms and you know that by now. I've seen you try to twist things you don't like about the message to fit into the Darwinian Bible box before and it doesn't work. Rome doesn't get to decide the meaning of Scripture and neither do atheistic materialists. God must be worshiped as Creator, that is the first paragraph of the Nicean Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]​

The incarnation and the Creation come before even the cross and the resurrection, why do you think that is?

Because Jesus had to be human before he could die and he had to share our humanity before he could die and rise again for us. Now what has that got to do with your claim Christian scholars all agree Genesis is a historical narrative

I understand the Revelation well enough, care to do an exposition for me? I know how metaphor is used and the Creation, Incarnation and the coming of Christ in power and glory are very literal Assyrian!

The issue isn't whether the creation is real but whether descriptions of it have to be literal, if you understand Revelation and understand that it speaks in symbols and metaphors, why can't the bible use symbols metaphors and parables to describe the creation?

I am not unsettled, I am appalled. You have disparaged a belief in Creation, the Incarnation and the return of Christ with reckless abandon and still have the nerve to preach to me about New Testament doctrine. You should be ashamed.

I know it so terribly arrogant of me to disagree with Mark Kennedy.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Greg1234]

You mean Mendel's genetics was established science before there was any possibility of direct observation too?

Are you saying that no one had taken an x-ray of a spring and had seen the effects before Rosalind took the DNA x-ray?

Only when you exclude all the figurative language that doesn't come with handy labels like 'like' 'as' or 'parable'.

But the parables have more spiritual elements when interpreted. They also speak of the creation of heavenly bodies and applied in reverse they would be talking about the creation of earthly bodies. Viewed wholly they would be talking about nature of reality.

You might think so now, but it isn't what people thought for the first 1500 years of church history. Their literal interpretation of the geocentric passages said it was the sun was moving round the earth.
It was their interpretation of scripture that was challenged by science of the day. And their response was to go back to scripture and find a new interpretation. Creationists would be wise to do the same.

Everything is reducible to the solar system and all things originated from a solar system?

Oh and have you left your stance that the bible literally uses earth as land?

The issue isn't whether the creation is real but whether descriptions of it have to be literal, if you understand Revelation and understand that it speaks in symbols and metaphors,

Y2K?