Literal miracles in the Bible?

[TLK Valentine]

Normal was not the issue in question. You're saying these things are impossible. My question to you is how do you know that?

Semantics. Either perform any of the actions mentioned, or hook me up with someone who can.

If you insist on denying the premise of miracles, your beef is with the Church, not with me.

 

[John Helpher]

Semantics.

It's not semantics to ask why you believe what you believe. You're saying these things are impossible. Why do you believe that?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's not semantics to ask why you believe what you believe. You're saying these things are impossible. Why do you believe that?

Because they are feats that human beings cannot do without divine assistance.

Unless you're willing to disprove that.

 

[John Helpher]

Because they are feats that human beings cannot do without divine assistance.

But, how do you know that?

 

[TLK Valentine]

But, how do you know that?

Because I understand the basics of the laws of physics, and, to the best of my knowledge, I'm not psychotic.

Why don't you know that?

 

[cloudyday2]

@TLK Valentine , consider UFO sightings. I don't know how much you know about UFOs, but there is no question that there are many well-documented and unexplained sightings. The question is only "what is causing this UFO sighting?". Often these UFO sightings seem to defy physics.

The difference I see between UFO sightings and miracles (such as parting the Red Sea) is the apparent purpose. Moses (with God's help) parted the Red Sea to escape Pharaoh and to show that God was stronger than the false gods of the Egyptians. With UFO sightings there often seems to be no obvious purpose.

So it seems to me that an extraordinary event that serves God's purpose is a miracle. There are varying degrees of extraordinary. Maybe a spontaneous phone call from one friend to another friend at just the right time to avert a suicide might be called a miracle even though no physical laws were broken.

Another thing to consider is that some of the classic miracles like parting the Red Sea can be imagined to be in conformance with physics. In the 1800s there were lots of people with an equal devotion to science and a literal understanding of Biblical miracles who tried to reconcile them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

@TLK Valentine , consider UFO sightings. I don't know how much you know about UFOs, but there is no question that there are many well-documented and unexplained sightings. The question is only "what is causing this UFO sighting?". Often these UFO sightings seem to defy physics.

Well, UFOs do exist... in the strictest sense of the word: Unidentified Flying Object. Plenty of people have looked in the sky and said "what the heck was that?!?" as something whizzed by.

(Fun fact: "manna" from heaven may have derived its name from the Aramaic question "man hu?" which means, "What is it?")

"UFOs" as in "little green men from Mars"? That, I'm skeptical about.

A species would have to be capable not only of interstellar travel, but of entering Earth's atmosphere completely undetected by multiple extensive satillite networks designed especially for spotting fast-moving objects entering our atmosphere at high speed (The United States has NORAD, Russia has the PBCH; pretty much every nation that doesn't want to ever get blindsided by an ICBM has someone watching the skies 24/7).... only to be spotted by Farmer Bob on a country dirt road in the middle of the night?

Possible? Yes. Plausible? No so much.

As for "seeming to defy physics," that's more an issue of technology than physics per se... assuming that UFOs are extraterrestrials, they're flying F-35 Lightnings; humans are the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk. I'd expect them to do plenty that we haven't figured out yet.

...but I digress.

The difference I see between UFO sightings and miracles (such as parting the Red Sea) is the apparent purpose. Moses (with God's help) parted the Red Sea to escape Pharaoh and to show that God was stronger than the false gods of the Egyptians.

"False gods" is a late Jewish/Christian dismissal. There's evidence that the Early Hebrews were not necessarily monotheistic, but monolatric -- they acknowledged the existence of other gods, but only worshiped One.

After all, Pharaoh's magicians were able to imitate not only Moses' "staff to snake" miracle, but the first two plagues... and if they had been faking it, wouldn't the Bible have said so? All it says is that the magicians used "their secret arts" which would indicate magic... and that magic had to come from somewhere, right? (and before you say "the Devil," remember that the ancient Hebrews didn't have one of those...)

...but I digress again.

With UFO sightings there often seems to be no obvious purpose.

Again, assuming the UFOs are in fact aliens, exploration would seem a plausible enough purpose... the fact that they are so often detected would indicate that 1. They're not very good at their job, or 2. there are a lot of alien investigations of our planet, and we're only spotting the amateurs.

... but I digress again.

[So it seems to me that an extraordinary event that serves God's purpose is a miracle. There are varying degrees of extraordinary. Maybe a spontaneous phone call from one friend to another friend at just the right time to avert a suicide might be called a miracle even though no physical laws were broken.

Fair enough -- God can work through ways which, while highly improbable, can still appear to be possible through natural means: Winning the lottery, getting struck by lightning, the New York Jets winning the Super Bowl (ok, that last one is more Faustian than miraculous... )

I'm referring only to those events in the Bible which cannot be explained as "long odds" or "one-in-a-million lucky break." When God wanted people to KNOW that He was there and that neither He nor His people are to be trifled with, He left no room for question. Part the Red Sea (and the Jordan River), Raise Lazarus from the dead after being buried for four days, stop the sun in the sky for a little more daylight to kill enemies under... we're at a whole new level of "extraordinary" there.

Those are the miracles I'm discussing.

Another thing to consider is that some of the classic miracles like parting the Red Sea can be imagined to be in conformance with physics. In the 1800s there were lots of people with an equal devotion to science and a literal understanding of Biblical miracles who tried to reconcile them.

I am aware of such reconciliation attempts. To the best of my knowledge, every such attempt at reconciliation with a literal understanding of Biblical miracles failed.

I mentioned the Red Sea earlier; I don't mind restating it:

Take, for example, Moses at the Red Sea. Some Biblical scholars claim that this was actually at the "Sea of Reeds," the swampy marshland where the Suez Canal is now located. The idea is that Moses led the Israelites slowly and carefully through this swamp, but the pursuing Egyptian army, wearing full armor and riding iron chariots, got hopelessly bogged down. In short, a lucky break for the Israelites which grew more and more fantastic with each retelling.

On the other hand, if it happened as traditionally depicted, in all of Cecil B. DeMille's glory:

Then we've got a bona fide miracle.

Now, the "Sea of Reeds" version is plausible, and it would certainly reconcile our knowledge of physics, history, geography, etc., with the Biblical account... but it ain't "literal"; not by a long shot.

 

[cloudyday2]

I am aware of such reconciliation attempts. To the best of my knowledge, every such attempt at reconciliation with a literal understanding of Biblical miracles failed.

I mentioned the Red Sea earlier; I don't mind restating it:

Now, the "Sea of Reeds" version is plausible, and it would certainly reconcile our knowledge of physics, history, geography, etc., with the Biblical account... but it ain't "literal"; not by a long shot.

My understanding is that the Hebrew could mean either "Sea of Reeds" or "Red Sea".

There are lots of naturalistic explanations for miracles in the Bible. One example I recall from one of Bart Ehrman's books attempted to explain the story of Jesus walking on water. In this explanation, the wind from the storm slowly blew the boat carrying the disciples towards shore without their knowledge (because it was dark). They saw Jesus walking towards them along the beach and assumed he was walking on water. When Peter stepped from the boat he fell into shallow water, but Jesus pulled him back into the boat. ... It made me chuckle, but it's semi-plausible.

 

[TLK Valentine]

My understanding is that the Hebrew could mean either "Sea of Reeds" or "Red Sea".

I lean towards the "Sea of Reeds" explanation myself...

There are lots of naturalistic explanations for miracles in the Bible. One example I recall from one of Bart Ehrman's books attempted to explain the story of Jesus walking on water. In this explanation, the wind from the storm slowly blew the boat carrying the disciples towards shore without their knowledge (because it was dark). They saw Jesus walking towards them along the beach and assumed he was walking on water. When Peter stepped from the boat he fell into shallow water, but Jesus pulled him back into the boat. ... It made me chuckle, but it's semi-plausible.

Certainly plausible (not to mention chuckle-worthy), but it ultimately takes away from what the Gospel writers are trying to communicate about Jesus.

Consider:

The OT writers are pretty explicit: Moses (the Bible's first miracle worker) can do miracles because God is with him. Parting the Red Sea is his big "Cecil B. Demille" moment -- the real history might be more "Sea of Reeds," but people are more likely to remember a fantastic story than a mundane history...

Anyway, Moses dies, and his successor, Joshua, can also do miracles, because the OT writers want to show that God is with him as well... Moses parted the Red Sea, Joshua parts the River Jordan.

A pattern develops: Miracles are how you show the reader that God is with someone. So, along come the prophets -- Elijah and Elisha. God is with them, so naturally, they do miracles too... including that old standby: Parting the River Jordan.

The Gospel writers had the Old Testament available to them as they wrote; it would've been tough for them not to see that pattern: miracles = God's with this guy. So... Mark, Matthew and John (Jesus doesn't walk on water in Luke) want to put Jesus in the same category as the Old Testament heroes, but at the same time, show that he's the best of the best: So... Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha part water and walk on dry land; Jesus one-ups all of them by walking on water as if it was dry land.

Anything they can do, He can do better. I'm a bit surprised he never took a little detour over to the River Jordan to part/walk on it; I guess he figured it's been done to death already.

 

[John Helpher]

Because I understand the basics of the laws of physics, and, to the best of my knowledge, I'm not psychotic.

You're saying levitation is impossible because you've never seen it or experienced it (i.e. to the best of your knowledge). Not only that, but you go further and suggest that anyone who does say it is possible, or claims to have witnessed it, is psychotic.

I'm not sure if you really understand the connection you're making here, but it certainly does seem like you believe anyone who has experiences which are contrary to your own must be psychotic. Your personal knowledge of reality has become the sole basis for what you understand to be possible or not possible; if you have not seen it, then it would be psychotic to believe it is possible.

Hmm....

 

[TLK Valentine]

You're saying levitation is impossible because you've never seen it or experienced it (i.e. to the best of your knowledge). Not only that, but you go further and suggest that anyone who does say it is possible, or claims to have witnessed it, is psychotic.

Wrong and wrong.

I'm saying that my understanding of the laws of physics is such that a person cannot negate gravity solely through force of will, and that because I am not afflicted with delusions, I do not believe that people can do this.

I'm not sure if you really understand the connection you're making here, but it certainly does seem like you believe anyone who has experiences which are contrary to your own must be psychotic.

Wrong again.

I believe that anyone who believes that they are capable of unpowered flight should immediately seek medical and/or psychiatric attention... preferably before they put on a Superman cape and dive out a window.

What I cannot believe is that I have been forced to spend this much of my time trying to convince someone I assume to be a fellow adult that People. Can. Not. Fly.

Your personal knowledge of reality has become the sole basis for what you understand to be possible or not possible; if you have not seen it, then it would be psychotic to believe it is possible.

Have you seen it? Is that where you're going with this?

Hmm....

Hmm, indeed. You don't happen to own a Superman cape, do you?
If so, I strongly urge you not to put it on...

 

[John Helpher]

I'm saying that my understanding of the laws of physics is such that a person cannot negate gravity solely through force of will,

You're the only one suggesting it must happen solely through force of will. A sincere person will be open to how such a thing may be possible through the laws of physics in a way which is not currently understood. You simply have a closed mind because it is convenient for it to be closed on this particular issue.

I believe that anyone who believes that they are capable of unpowered flight should immediately seek medical and/or psychiatric attention

This is not about what people believe, but rather what is possible based on the laws of phsyics. You keep turning it into t a mental health issue, which strongly suggests a mental health issue on your own part; anyone who does not think the way you do must be crazy, right?

Have you seen it? Is that where you're going with this?

I've read eye-witness evidence of it.

Hmm, indeed. You don't happen to own a Superman cape, do you?

This is evidence of a problem on your part; a resort to ridicule toward those who do not think the way you do.

The truth is not in you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You're the only one suggesting it must happen solely through force of will. A sincere person will be open to how such a thing may be possible through the laws of physics in a way which is not currently understood. You simply have a closed mind because it is convenient for it to be closed on this particular issue.

Then fly. This pseudo-Socratic talking in circles is getting tiresome.

This is not about what people believe, but rather what is possible based on the laws of phsyics. You keep turning it into t a mental health issue, which strongly suggests a mental health issue on your own part; anyone who does not think the way you do must be crazy, right?

Then fly. If you believe that the laws of physics can be so easily circumvented, it's time to put your money where your mouth is.

I've read eye-witness evidence of it.

As have I...

This is evidence of a problem on your part; a resort to ridicule toward those who do not think the way you do.

The truth is not in you.

Then fly. if you believe that human beings are capable of flight, I no longer have the time nor the inclination to dissuade you of this. I only wish you the best of luck, and urge you to consider your options carefully (including the safety of your takeoff point) before attempting it yourself.

Otherwise, let's just get to the point... miracle stories in the Bible -- literal or figurative?

 

[Moral Orel]

Because they are feats that human beings cannot do without divine assistance.

I actually take a small issue with this. Who says that "divine assistance" is the cause of such an event if it ever happens? It would certainly be supernatural of some kind, but I think people take for granted the logical leap they make from "such and such miracle occurred" to "there is a creator of the universe". If I were to grant that any given miraculous feat occurred, who's to say where the person who did it got his magic powers?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I actually take a small issue with this. Who says that "divine assistance" is the cause of such an event if it ever happens? It would certainly be supernatural of some kind, but I think people take for granted the logical leap they make from "such and such miracle occurred" to "there is a creator of the universe". If I were to grant that any given miraculous feat occurred, who's to say where the person who did it got his magic powers?

Agreed, but this is a discussion of miracles in the Bible... and in a Biblical context, when the laws of nature get set aside, it's a safe bet that someone's god is the culprit.

 

[John Helpher]

Then fly. If you believe that the laws of physics can be so easily circumvented, it's time to put your money where your mouth is.

I'm not saying they are circumvented, but rather used in a way which we currently do not understand, not am I saying it is something which is easy, just as understanding natural or quantum phsyics is not easy, though neither does being difficult make such understanding impossible.

See the issue was never whether *I* can levitate, or whether I know how to levitate, but rather that levitation should not be considered impossible (as you've said it is) just because one does not know how to do it.

By insisting that I must levitate in order to prove that levitation is possible is sabotage of your own understanding. You've decided that not only is levitation impossible simply because you neither know how to do it nor have you personally witnessed it, but that anyone who insists it may be possible via natural physics must be psychotic.

This is not a sincere way to approach truth, i.e. that if someone believes differently to you then that person must be crazy, yet that is the approach you're consistently taking with me on this issue, even after I point it out to you that you are doing so.

To me, this suggests that it is not simply an issue of ignorance on your part, but rather a deliberate insistence on denying any exploration of truth which may contradict what you've already decided must be false. In other words, reality can only be what you chose for it to be; that is delusion.

I do not say this kind of thing is specific to you because of the particular position you've taken regarding the miracles recorded in historical texts, but certainly you do have a reason for being so stubborn. Religious people do something similar, for example, when they insist that the Bible is perfect, infallible, and complete. The Bible itself does not make this claim, they they will stubbornly insist that it is true, almost certainly because they've decided such a position is representative of their core identity; to recognize any discrepancy in their perspective on truth/reality would necessarily reflect on the integrity of their identity. Recognizing such a flaw in what we've so ardently argued heretofore is like recognizing a flaw in who we are; it becomes a pride issue, especially on a public forum like this.

You would rather lose and arm or a leg, or perhaps die, than to recognize that it is not sincere to accuse others of being psychotic just because they disagree with your understanding of what is possible. To hide this flaw, you've turned to ridicule, i.e. the superman reference, in the hopes that a fight will distract from the truth. If you can relegate the exchange to simple tit-for-tat pot shots then you will be spared from facing the awful truth that you have a narrow mind.

Anyway, I'm aware of the futility of arguing to you that you're deluded as being deluded would preclude you from recognizing the delusion, but I like to believe there is still hope even in such circumstances and perhaps lurkers will find some benefit from the exchange.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm not saying they are circumvented, but rather used in a way which we currently do not understand, not am I saying it is something which is easy, just as understanding natural or quantum phsyics is not easy, though neither does being difficult make such understanding impossible.

And yet it was understood in AD 33... or was it?

See the issue was never whether *I* can levitate, or whether I know how to levitate, but rather that levitation should not be considered impossible (as you've said it is) just because one does not know how to do it.

Well, until someone figures out how to do it and is willing to share that knowledge, it's not possible. Shall we move on?

The rest of the verbiage distracts from the OP -- Are the Biblical miracles meant to be interpreted as actual historical events, or as something else?

 

[ChetSinger]

Now, for this thread, I want to define "miracle" as "The overt suspension of natural laws by the divine or agent of the divine in order to achieve a divine purpose."

That said, are the miracle stories as they are described in the Old and New Testaments meant to be interpreted as depictions of actual events?

From what I've learned the bible is best interpreted by understanding the mindset of the cultures in which it was initially written.

The mindsets of the authors and readers of the Old and New Testaments were much more attuned to the supernatural than our own. Miracles were indeed interpreted as actual events.

For example, the Jewish historian Josephus (writing in the 1st century) documented the history of the Jewish nation in his work "Antiquities of the Jews". Much of it comes from the Old Testament. He treats almost every event in it as historical (one exception is that he distances himself from the account of Jonah and the fish).

And if so, do those depictions bring people closer to an understanding of God, or further away?

I think that depends. When the Red Sea was parted it depended on whether you were a fleeing Israelite or a pursuing Egyptian.

Because it seems to me that stories of a God who can miraculously bend/break the natural laws of the universe at will raise a lot of awkward questions about the countless times He chooses not to.

Consider:

• God rains manna from the heavens to feed the Israelites.... today, millions are starving.
• God -- either personally or through His prophets -- heals the sick and infirm and even raises the dead... today, millions suffer and die.
• God -- again either personally or through His prophets -- commands the forces of nature... today, drought, storms, earthquakes, etc... kill millions.

Now, I'm not asking "why do bad things happen?" But rather, "would we even have to ask these questions if we didn't assume that miracles were actual historic acts?"

Thoughts?

Long ago we rebelled against God and were cursed with death. We were warned, but rebelled anyway. That's why we suffer and die. God doesn't owe us miracles.

What he did for us 2,000 years ago was more than a miracle. He sent his son to die for our sins and then raised him from the dead, proving that he can raise us from the dead, too. He broke the curse and now we, by believing the gospel, can have eternal life once again.

 

[John Helpher]

Well, until someone figures out how to do it and is willing to share that knowledge, it's not possible.

Unless you see it with your own eyes, it's not possible...

That is not how truth works, but you took it even further; you said people who believe something is possible which you believe to be impossible are psychopaths. You said that. Now you want to move on?

No. You should be accountable for what you say; otherwise what you say isn't worth hearing.

 

[TLK Valentine]

From what I've learned the bible is best interpreted by understanding the mindset of the cultures in which it was initially written.

No argument there.

The mindsets of the authors and readers of the Old and New Testaments were much more attuned to the supernatural than our own. Miracles were indeed interpreted as actual events.

"more attuned to the supernatural..." that sounds interesting.

For example, the Jewish historian Josephus (writing in the 1st century) documented the history of the Jewish nation in his work "Antiquities of the Jews". Much of it comes from the Old Testament. He treats almost every event in it as historical (one exception is that he distances himself from the account of Jonah and the fish).

Well, that was the goal he explicitly stated in his work, was it not?

"Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures"

Seems to me a question of whether Josephus was vying for historical accuracy, Biblical faithfulness, or painting the Jewish people in a more favorable light.

I think that depends. When the Red Sea was parted it depended on whether you were a fleeing Israelite or a pursuing Egyptian.

Ignoring the fact that the pursuing Egyptians were supposedly killed to the last man, it seems unlikely that they were ever the target audience.

Long ago we rebelled against God and were cursed with death.

...by Him,

We were warned, but rebelled anyway.

This is off-topic, and I promised myself I wouldn't pursue it, but I do have to ask: As you are clearly referring Adam, Eve, and the doctrine of Original Sin, what exactly was the nature of that rebellion, and how precisely were A&E expected to understand the consequences of that rebellion when they would be unable to conceptualize it until after the very act?

There's also the issue of that subtle serpent; where'd it come from?

And of course, leaving two utterly innocent and naive creations unsupervised with a clearly malicious reptile and the one thing in all of existence which can send the whole thing sideways is just catastrophe waiting to happen.

Even more so than the awkward questions raised by literal miracles, a literal Garden of Eden does not make God look good. Granted, the serpent, Eve, and Adam have to take their share of responsibility (and so they do), but so then does The Boss.

And there's no way around it in a literal Garden of Eden: God dropped the ball.

That's why we suffer and die.

And why women have pain in childbirth, and why snakes crawl on their bellies, yes... God was quite explicit.

God doesn't owe us miracles.

God doesn't owe us anything whatsoever... but, if the Bible is to be believed, He does occasionally deliver.

So whenever God -- either on His own or via a human agent of His choosing -- does do something extraordinary, it's going to raise a few questions.

What he did for us 2,000 years ago was more than a miracle. He sent his son to die for our sins and then raised him from the dead, proving that he can raise us from the dead, too.

Except that, again, if literal miracles are to be accepted, He already demonstrated that He can do that.... centuries earlier.

First via Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-24), and then again with Elisha (2 Kings 4:18-37).

And not counting his own resurrection, Jesus had already raised at least three people from the dead... There are five such resurrection miracles recorded in the Gospels, but three of them are clear retellings of the same event: The daughter of Jairus in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Add the widow's son in Luke's Gospel and Lazarus in John's, and Jesus has clearly already proven that point.

He broke the curse and now we, by believing the gospel, can have eternal life once again.

It's an inspiring story, but the problem is that it's been 2,000 years and God's curse seems to still be very much in effect. Everything and everyone still dies. Now it may very well be that at some point in the future that may change... which will raise no small amount of questions.