Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Peter wrote in part:
> Then you wrote: "But the argument being made seems to be that the 
> ancients thought (ha ha) that God did a miracle, but we moderns know 
> that it was a volcano that fooled them into thinking YHWH had acted 
> for them." That is not at all my argument. I would rather argue that 
> they were right, that YHWH did indeed act for them, not by suspending 
> natural laws but by providentially arranging for the volcano to erupt 
> (or whatever) at just the right time to arrange for the Israelites to 
> escape. Now I know that the self-appointed scholars' ha ha's will now 
> be directed at me rather than at the ancients. Let them laugh. Or they 
> could say that the Israelites cleverly took the opportunity of the 
> confusion caused by the natural disasters to escape and then 
> attributed the whole thing to YHWH as an example of his sovereignty, 
> so fitting the theological purpose of the book. I would not really 
> quarrel with that. But in general, the ancients were (as you say) 
> smart enough to recognise natural phenomenon for what they were, and 
> also perceptive enough to realise that when these phenomenon took 
> place at just the time that they were needed, that was not chance but 
> the sovereignty of the God who was working for them.

As one who takes the accounts as entirely possible, plausible and 
probably reasonably accurate, I'll probably catch more ha ha's than 
Peter will, and I really don't care.  History that explicitly rules out 
the supernatural because it supposedly can't be verified is 
supposedly more scientific, but this is a myth itself; in actuality, no 
history can be verified in the sense that scientific convention 
currently defines it; I can't verify that I had breakfast yesterday any 
more than I can verify the plagues of Egypt.  But if I tell you that I 
had breakfast yesterday you likely take my word for it because I 
was there.  I have no problem with the idea that we are dealing with 
records that ultimately stem from people who were there, and if 
they give an account of something supernatural, well then we 
ignore it at our peril.  We may be overly smug in our attitude toward 
the ancients, but it's an unwarranted smugness since, as C.S. 
Lewis put it so nicely, no study of probabilities within a given 
framework will ever be able to tell us whether or not the framework 
itself can be violated.  All we can do is rely on the accounts of 
people who were there.  If the accounts don't square with the 
current worldview, then the problem is likely with the worldview, not 
the account.



Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
                                   Psalm 86:11