Miracles was Re: [asa] stance

From: James Mahaffy <mahaffy@dordt.edu>
Date: Sat May 12 2007 - 07:43:30 EDT


I think you are even serious. We really run into problems if Christ's
miracles MUST fit within our understanding of how he normally works.
Pretty soon there is no virgin birth (an affair would produce the needed
sperm) and Lazarus was just in a coma. Then the God I worship is no
longer really God but just a good man. Isn't that what the liberal
theologian of the 30's were doing? I think that is why Machen did his
graduate work on and wrote the book the virgin birth of Christ.

I have said this before I think - but back in the 60's we had a visiting
Christian scientist visit us at Dordt where I was a student and he
seriously suggested that the water of Canna of might have been hard
water to produce the needed carbon (from Calcium carbonate). I still
use that suggestion when I have my students at Dordt think how God
works. Another suggestion I make to get them to think is that you can
explain Peter walking on water by assuming the Lord caused to big flat
bottom dwelling fish to swim right under the water. The sad thing is
that there are some Biblical commentaries [in this case I think usually
liberal theologically] that seriously try and use any natural
explanation [regardless of how implausible] to explain miracles.

James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu) Phone: 712 722-6279
498 4th Ave NE
Biology Department FAX : 712
Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
>>> Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> 05/11/07 9:35 PM >>>
There is of course the possibility that Jesus, rather than creating the
wine, simply transported it from somewhere else (and of course
transported the water elsewhere)
Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
"A theory that you cannot explain to a bartender is probably no damn
--Ernest Rutherford

----- Original Message ----
From: David Buller <bullerscience@gmail.com>
To: Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
Cc: Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>; AmericanScientificAffiliation
<asa@calvin.edu>; Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 3:59:02 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] ASA stance

On 5/11/07, Robert Schneider <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Bob's response:
I can appreciate why the Word made flesh might have aged the wine rather
quickly, assuming "the best wine" tasted aged. One could say that he was

giving a special gift to the wedding party, or giving a foretaste of the
messianic banquet, or simply to "show forth his glory," the specific
that Scripture seems to indicate. But what possible purpose could the

"in the beginning" have in creating an entire universe that gives every
indication of being billions of years old, but doing it in six days?
purpose would this serve? What kind of sign (semeia) is this? Can anyone

give me an answer that does not require me to take leave of my senses?

Here's another difference in the YEC apparent age argument and the
apparent age of the wine. By creating the wine miraculously in front of
all the guests, he made its true age clear. Not so in the creation of
the universe.


-David Buller


a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who
knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 12 07:44:17 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 12 2007 - 07:44:18 EDT