You missed my point. I don't want to argue the literal meaning of a
biblical translation.
The point is that there are numerous instances of miracles in the Bible
that lend themselves
to natural explanation. That does not make them any less miraculous. The
timing of those
events made all the difference historically. Had they not occurred when
they did, the outcome
would have been different. God doesn't draw a distinction between what
Iain calls Big miracles
and Small miracles. God was not in the wind, the fire, and the earthquake.
He was the still
small voice.
Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com>@udomo3.calvin.edu on 02/12/2001 11:04:18 AM
Sent by: asa-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
To: asa@calvin.edu
cc: glenn.morton@btinternet.com
Subject: Re: Miracles and Science
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:33:18 -0500 James_Taggart@multilink.com writes:
>
> There is a slightly different view you can take on the seeming conflict
> between miracles and science, particularly biblical miracles. In many
> cases, the issue may not be how the event took place, but rather when.
I
> am willing to believe that the parting of the Red Sea for the
Israelites
> was a fortuitous confluence of wind, tide, and perhaps sand drift that
> enabled the Israelites to cross on foot. The Egyptian chariots, being
> wheeled, did not fare so well and got mired in the sand.
The problem I see with your "slightly different view" is that you have
compromised the scripture. "...the Israelites went through the sea on
dry ground, with a *wall* of water on their right and on their left." (Ex
14:22) Or is "wall" incorrectly translated?
Glenn encounters a similar problem with his valiant effort to explain
Noah's Flood with the infilling of the Med. Basin/Black Sea. Certainly
the breaching of the "dam" at the mouth of the Med. Sea would have
flooded the basins, but the scripture says "the waters receded steadily
from the earth....The waters continued to recede until the 10th month,
and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became
visible." (Gen 8:3, 5) Simply flooding an area is only half the battle;
to be fully congruent with the scripture the waters must not only rise,
but also recede.
When Glenn wrote:
"One of the paragraphs in Howard Van Till's reply to me made me go do
some
research I had wanted to do for a long time. The outcome of this
research
will not be very pleasing to anyone--including me.
>Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:43 PM",
he admitted that we apply two standards to the scripture, one for the
resurrection where we accept miracles and another for the Old Testament
where we attempt to explain everything through naturalistic processes of
cause and effect. Actually, I disagree with Glenn's statement that "The
outcome of this research will not be very pleasing to anyone--including
me." I think Ken Ham, Kent Hovind et al would be very pleased to see
that Glenn has come around to thinking like the YECs. Glenn's logic is
precisely why Ken Ham's "Answers In Genesis" (www.answersingenesis.org)
position statement is "Equiping Christians to uphold the authority of the
Bible from the very first verse."
If we pull a thread out from one end of the Bible, the whole thing tends
to unravel if we are consistent, which, I think, is why Glenn doesn't
like the results of his research. He seems to be caught in a bit of a
scissor, between his integrity on the one hand and his desire to be
consistent on the other.
Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 08:51:09 EST