N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Which Biblical Stories are Historical, Miraculous, and Unexplainable by Science?
Which Biblical Stories are Historical, Miraculous, and Unexplainable by Science?
- Status
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Are you asking, in other words, which biblical miracle stories are literally, physically, historically true?
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
It was hard to word it right for the poll. I wanted to rule out people who say that the miracles were naturally occuring, for example that the plagues in Egypt and the Red Sea parting were just coincidences, or that Jesus was walking on a floating peice of ice
Also, the people who don’t believe in the miracles still love to call them ‘true’ so I had to avoid that word… “oh, but they are so very true in that they teach us about God, even if they are purely legendary and fictional”…
S
strngrnrth
Guest
Some miracles may be partly explainable scientifically but not fully (therefore they are miracles). I think there is good reason to believe the six days of creation are cosmic days and other longer astronomical days but it is still a miracle. God made matter, energy, time and space from literally nothing and made it perfect. He did so very quickly and much more smoothly and painlessly than the accident theory would have it. It followed beautifully co-ordinated, even choreographed cycles of darkness and light, and He wanted to tell us that much to let us see how harmonious His plans are and always were, how neatly His creation fits together, and that we are not an accident.
I think Noah’s Ark is an engineering feat but the flood and its abatement are miracles. Cultures around the world have stories of world floods, and amazingly enough they all say a single family survived, landing somewhere north of Africa, west of east Asia, east of North America and south of Scandinavia. That doesn’t quite p(name removed by moderator)oint Ararat itself but it is a reasonable asumption it was somewhere around the Mideast.
I think Noah’s Ark is an engineering feat but the flood and its abatement are miracles. Cultures around the world have stories of world floods, and amazingly enough they all say a single family survived, landing somewhere north of Africa, west of east Asia, east of North America and south of Scandinavia. That doesn’t quite p(name removed by moderator)oint Ararat itself but it is a reasonable asumption it was somewhere around the Mideast.
P
patg
Guest
I’m not sure what you’re asking either. I would start by saying that none are “historical” in the sense that there is not enough evidence for any of them to be even mentioned in a history book. They all concern supernatural events outside the realm of human explanation and thus are in the area of faith. This may make them “true” but says nothing about whether they actually relate to real events.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Historical: having once lived or existed or taken place in the real world as distinct from being legendary
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Certainly much of it isn’t historical.
All of it at least has miraculous components.
And of course, we don’t have the data for a scientific explanation.
But I’m wondering why some people here think that God is “cheating”, if He happens to use some natural event to work His will.
Why?
All of it at least has miraculous components.
And of course, we don’t have the data for a scientific explanation.
But I’m wondering why some people here think that God is “cheating”, if He happens to use some natural event to work His will.
Why?
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
God doesn’t cheat when He performs a miracle–people who look for Only non-miraculous explanations for some historical events that do not have non-miraculous explanations cheat themselves and others and the truth is not in them.
V
Verbum
Guest
Hi Neil,
Our whole religion rests on one historical fact that must be taken literally : the Resurrection of Jesus. As St. Paul says, if Jesus did not resurrect, our faith is vain and we are the unhappiest of men.
As for other facts, their literal historicity is more or less important. It is the religious message that they communicate that is important. For example, the creation story. What we must understand is that God is a personal God who made all thing and made them for a purpose.
As the Pontifical Biblical Commission once stated, the fact that a passage is not historical in the modern sense, does not mean that it is not historical in any sense.
Verbum
Our whole religion rests on one historical fact that must be taken literally : the Resurrection of Jesus. As St. Paul says, if Jesus did not resurrect, our faith is vain and we are the unhappiest of men.
As for other facts, their literal historicity is more or less important. It is the religious message that they communicate that is important. For example, the creation story. What we must understand is that God is a personal God who made all thing and made them for a purpose.
As the Pontifical Biblical Commission once stated, the fact that a passage is not historical in the modern sense, does not mean that it is not historical in any sense.
Verbum
C
CindiA
Guest
I don’t understand why we can’t just take what the Bible says literally. I say ALL occurred and probably can’t be proven scientifically. Yes, man can come up with some very imaginative “explanations”, but why? Let’s just read Scripture and take God as speaking truth. We do not have to check our brains at the door, but then again there’s this thing called faith. And so my answer is: “D” All of above.
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
What’s with all the voters who reject the Fall of Man as historically accurate? This is where we get Original Sin, and this is a Dogma of the Church.
P
patg
Guest
Yes, that is the simplistic answer. Now ask any real historian why none of these events are mentioned in any history text. There is a big difference between you believing that something happened and the existence of any evidence for it.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
In the context of this poll, ‘historical’ means that it really physically happened in a real time and place… it doesn’t mean that it has to be provable using historical methods. I agree that the word ‘historical’ can also mean that… but for purposes of this poll please use the definition you call ‘simplistic’.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
There’s more historical proof of the resurrection of Jesus than many other supposed historical events that are in history books!
P
patg
Guest
There is actually no proof of the resurrection at all - no witnesses, no resurrection stories, etc. It certainly happened but belief that it did is* strictly* a mattter of faith.
If the most significant event in human history is proveable in any way, why does not a single history text state that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago? No historian would ever leave that out of any history text. And yet it is totally unverifiable and thus remains an item of faith.
P
patg
Guest
It is your poll so you can make the rules. I only spoke up because I feel that ignoring historical criticism introduces a lie into any contemporary Christian faith that claims history as its basis. It is not acceptable to assert that one’s views are historically accurate and at the same time reject the standards and practices of the historical method and historical thinking.
C
CindiA
Guest
I see the results list Jesus turning water into wine as a top contender, How can that be? I saw it for myself. There’s a statue of it in Israel. 
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
For the same reason as we can’t take “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” “literally” - except as a story.
God is (presumably) able to endow bears with the faculty of articulate speech - but there is no reason to suppose that He ever has. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the teller of the story was divinely assisted so that we thr readers & hearers would have an historically accurate record of the words & deeds of Goldilocks, her mother, & the bears.No one rebukes those who doubt the historical accuracy & theological perfection & total inerrancy of that story - yet it is not so very different from some of the contents of the Bible. Conversely, Balaam’s jenny in Numbers 22 does not become historically actual merely because she occurs in the Bible - the story of her rebuking her master does not become actual fact on the mere ground that “God is able to” make a dumb animal speak. AFAIK, nobody believes that Xanthus, one of the horses of Achilles, spoke to that hero - yet the incident, which is described in Iliad Book 19, is even closer to the story in Numbers 22; they come from times & places which are quite similar in many ways.
The question is, not what God can do, but what the meaning of the Scriptures - in all respects & from every point of view - is meant to be. It is many-layered, so far more complex than some who love & prize it allow.
And the same is true of NT stories - their inspiration does not guarantee their historical actuality.
Nor does it follow that because an incident was regarded as miraculous when it happened, it would count as a miracle now. For instance: the epileptic boy in Matthew 17 was regarded as possessed by a demon; but if he was epileptic, there is no reason to explain his affliction in such a way, because epilepsy is not caused by demons. IOW - by whose standards is a miracle miraculous: theirs who
- saw it
- wrote about it later
- heard it read of in early times
- heard it read of in later times
or - by ours, in our time ? What is credible in one culture, will often be utterly outrageous or unmeaning in another: this is particularly true of the Incarnation & the Passion. Greeks had no difficulty with tales of divine men - but Jews & Muslims find belief in an Incarnate God impossible. We are no different from any other culture - Western man has his difficulties; they just happen not to match those of the Biblical peoples.
FWIW, I don’t think a miracle is less miraculous for being explicable; I’m not sure that understanding miracles as by definition inexplicable suits the Biblical data. Many of what we call “miracles” are called “wonders”, “signs”, “mighty works” in the books that speak of them - that does not (ISTM) require them to be inexplicable.
As for those done by Jesus: maybe it is not the act performed, but the attitude of which it is a sign, that is inexplicable. The mercy of God behind the healing of the boy is inexplicable - not the epilepsy that was healed.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Which Biblical Stories are Historical, Miraculous, and Unexplainable by Science?
6-Day Creation
6-Day Creation
- This is a fact, but its not historical in any sense; and the framework of six days does not reflect how long it took
Fall of Man - is in some sense a real event, but not historical - the story about it in Genesis 3 is a myth conveying an interpretation of every day existence. It gives no info about the first two human beings.
Noah’s Ark - is an Israelite adaptation & re-telling of a widespread myth which it reflects an historical flood; this does not make the details about Noah & his family historically actual.
The Exodus - The different narratives reflect historical events, & seem to suggest that “the Exodus” was composed of at least two Exoduses - the traditions are very difficult to unravel. But there does seem to have been a real historical event.
Virgin Mary Conceives Jesus - I believe this happened
Jesus turns water into wine
Jesus raises Lazarus
Jesus walks on water
Jesus’ Resurrection
Pentecost - I’m not sure about the first three - the Resurrection is a real event, but not historical: that’s not an adequate category for it; & the same holds (I believe) for Pentecost. Not all occurrences in this world are historical, even though they happen. Maybe they can be called eschatological or apocalyptic history.
One idea that needs to be got rid of is that God “intervenes” or “interferes” in history - it implies that God is a stranger to His own creation: which is exactly the reverse of the truth. creation belongs to God - man, the “historical animal”, is not part of God’s work except by His grace; not by right.
M
MH84
Guest
I dont understand why you claim Jesus didnt walk on water, or change water into wine, but then you jump up and down defending the historicity of the Resurrection.
What do you mean by “the Resurrection is a real event, but not historical”? Could you elaborate please.
What do you mean by “the Resurrection is a real event, but not historical”? Could you elaborate please.
- Status