Friday, May 14, 2010

The Miracle Of Life After Death

Against miracles Philosopher David Hume stated; " “…a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm  unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined”…."nothing is esteemed a miracle if it never happened in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must therefore be a uniform experience Against every miraculous event, otherwise that event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle, nor can such a proof be destroyed, or the miracle rendered credible, but only an opposite proof which is superior.” (Emphasis mine) [David Hume “Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals 3rd. Edition”, Oxford, Clarendon Press 1992, pg. 144-146 & 148]

In my 2 posts on antisupernaturalism and miracles, found HERE and HERE, I discuss Hume's assertions that miracles don't exist. Although some interpret that he left the door open to miracles, for all practical purposes Hume defines miracles out of existence. Those arguments and his assertions have been thoroughly dealt with and handled throughout the years, but many of his concepts of radical metaphysical naturalism are popular among academics, college campuses and most any atheist internet web site. It is the assertions of Hume that fuel sentiments against miracles as "violations" of natural law.

Dead For 15 Minutes

John King: "You're a miracle, you're a miracle in many ways"

On Thursday May 13th on CNN's John King USA Capt. Joshua A. Mantz gave his story of life, death and life again.

Capt. Mantz, a proud Army Soldier, was serving in Iraq doing his duty when both he and Staff Sgt. Marlon Harper  were suddenly stuck with a sniper's bullet. The attack happened so suddenly that Captain Mantz recalls that he only had time to act on instinct and impulse. The shot had taken Sgt. Harper's life almost instantly but had sent shrapnel with force into his leg severing his femoral artery and causing a serious bleed out. Capt. Mantz grabbed his fellow soldier of 275 lbs under an adrenaline rush, hauling him to safety as the medic was called into action. Having to decide who to save, the medic began trying to work on Captain Mantz but he would eventually go on to experience death for 15 minutes as documented in Army records.

Hear Capt. Mantz for himself in the following video:




Captain Mantz, had no heart beat, no pulse. 15 minutes later Captain Mantz awoke, beginning his recovery process from death. Dr's expected certain brain damage after just 5 minutes in this condition but after 15 minutes and tests there was not only life, but no brain damage. Not only that but Capt. Mantz's  was ready to reengage after emerging from death and wanted to fulfill his desire to go back to the war to let the soldiers under his command know that he was OK in effort to boost their morale. As you can see from the video,  Captain Mantz  got that chance and proudly serves today!

A Miracle

By all accounts, this was and is considered to be a miracle. First, there is the incident itself from which Captain Mantz ultimately survived. Second there is the length of time of being flatlined (15 minutes) from which Captain Mantz suffers no adverse effects in the face of what was said to be certain scientific knowledge.

The Bishop That Came Back To Life After Being Dead 45 Minutes

Now, the story of a 15 minute come back from death to life somewhat pales in comparison to the story of Bishop Darrell Hines of Milwaukee, WI.

As documented by news and various reports, in 1981 Bishop Hines was not only struck by lightning, but was also pronounced dead. According to the reports, (which I have personally seen)  Bishop Hines was dead with no heart beat and pulse for 45 minutes.

In his case he was prayed for by a believing mother who called Bishop Hines back from death's grip through prayer under the authority of Jesus. According to Bishop Hines, at that instant his life reentered his body as he began to breathe and sit up and down and as his limbs began to reanimate. Contrary to the Dr's expectations, like Captain Mantz, after multiple tests there was also no brain damage and no organ or tissue damage beyond what the strike of lightening had caused and that was treatable. Currently, Bishop Hines runs a full ministerial schedule, conducts a multiple thousand member church, writes books and gladly preaches the gospel every opportunity that he has. He also presents news articles and videos regarding the 1981 death and resurrection occurrence at various times and places.

Conclusion

According to David Hume and radical metaphysical naturalists, that seemingly invade the internet, these things can't happen and certainly can't be the truth. The most radical claim that if things like this did occur, the people would be no less than "zombies". Then they reason that death is expected according to naturalism and that they and don't seen anyone returning from it, but in order avoid these things and conclude that they didn't happen, one would would have to do like the 3 monkeys...see, hear, and speak no coming back after death.



In other words one must completely turn off their intellect and pretend that things don't exist. In light of the evidence, postulations of this sort are simply ridiculous. To live in denial of the fact that naturalism and science cannot and does not account for all phenomena is plainly an absurd postulation.

Obviously miracles DO occur and people DO experience them. Obviously miracles occur both through prayer and at God's divine command for whatever purpose he wills.  

1 Cor. 15:53-58 ~"53-For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality.54-So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55-O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory? 56-The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law. 57-But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58-Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord."


Now if these men, who have no power over life and death could come back from the dead, certainly the one who has all power over both life and death can do as he pleases. these men had no power to bring themselves back to life, but there is one who has demonstrated that he has that power by controlling the very elements while living, curing incurable diseases and calling others from death to life.

The resurrection of Jesus was the ultimate promise of victory over death and down payment on the fact that those of us who believe will receive the reward of our assurance. God exercised and demonstrated his power of death by suspending death's process and even negating its effects. Death came but it did not have power or victory over Jesus as Jesus took his life up again only in a glorified state or condition. Death will certainly come to each of us, but in Christ, it does not and will not have the victory over us. 

1 Cor. 15: 51-52 ~ "51-Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,52-In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."


While no one can make the materialist believe, the materialist is continually left trying to explain away what is evidently and obviously set before them. Thank god that these things have been revealed to them that will hear.

Blessed!   

16 comments:

  1. The definition of death continues to change as medical technology advances. For instance, a stopped heart used to be sufficient to declare death, but that obviously is not the case today. Although cessation of electrical activity in the brain is considered reasonable criteria today, even that is being challenged by some people.

    Death is more of a process than an event, which is why it can be difficult to draw the line. The Uniform Determination of Death Act has the following language:

    "An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead."

    If one accepts that definition of death then the gentlemen profiled in this post, as well as all the other people who have had similar experiences (including Don Piper), were not dead, because their cessation of functions was not irreversible. Their stories are no doubt outside the norm in terms of recovery, and medical professionals may have difficulty explaining exactly what happened. It is quite possible that the right monitoring equipment in the right places could have shown how and why their recovery began, or maybe not. We'll never know. But going from "We don't know" to "God did it" just isn't logical.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brap,

    The explanation that God is responsible doesn't satisfy man's epistemological needs to know the cause but there are a lot of things that happen that we don't know the cause of but we submit simply because that's the way it is.

    Fact is that biblically, God is described as the the giver and sustainer of life. He is described as the architect of life. If that's the case in light of what we don't know, it's easier and more logical to begin there than to begin with the unreasonable proposition of discounting God or miraculous intervention simply because you don't have epistemological certainty...That's the 3 monkeys...Denial is mental gymnastics and unwarranted.

    In addition, the condition was irreversible as the professionals did nothing to reverse the process...How many others did they do the same thing to for the same length of time with no results...further according to your interpretation (since you're basically saying that they weren't really dead) how long should resuscitation efforts occur...5 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 24 hours????

    Then, when that's settled, what about brain damage? How is brain damage avoided when we already know that oxygen deprivation causes much more extensive damage at much shorter lengths of time???

    It's funny how science is only good when it fits one's worldview is it not? That's certainly the way it seems reading your commentary...

    Carry on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's funny, that the SWOON hypothesis takes many forms..."they weren't really dead". That's a mess.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ". . . there are a lot of things that happen that we don't know the cause of but we submit simply because that's the way it is."

    Well, some people submit whereas others keep searching for naturalistic explanations.

    "Fact is that biblically, God is described as the the giver and sustainer of life."

    He is also described as the creator of rainbows and many other things (weather, earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, etc.) that have since then been found to have naturalistic explanations. So I don't think it's logical to assume God did anything just because people thought he did 2000 years ago. I think it's more logical to assume there are things we don't know now that we will know later, since that has been true at any point in human history.

    "In addition, the condition was irreversible as the professionals did nothing to reverse the process"

    Reversing does not have to be done by outside forces. The human body has amazing natural healing powers. When you cut your arm, the cut can heal without anybody doing anything.

    "How many others did they do the same thing to for the same length of time with no results..."

    Probably plenty, since every case is unique.

    "further according to your interpretation (since you're basically saying that they weren't really dead) how long should resuscitation efforts occur...5 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 24 hours????"

    Until the most knowledgeable person or persons regarding medical procedures on site agrees the resuscitation efforts should stop.

    "Then, when that's settled, what about brain damage? How is brain damage avoided when we already know that oxygen deprivation causes much more extensive damage at much shorter lengths of time???"

    I don't know, but I suspect a medical professional might have some theories.

    "It's funny how science is only good when it fits one's worldview is it not? That's certainly the way it seems reading your commentary..."

    What science have I declared as not good?

    I won't be able to continue this discussion until I'm back on the internets late Sunday.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brap,

    You said"Well, some people submit whereas others keep searching for naturalistic explanations."

    Miracles don't automatically mean that their process is not based on naturalistic premises. Miracles are not "violations" of natural law, they are supersession of natural law.

    eg: We know the effect of gravity on earth. When a plane flies other law(s) come into effect overriding the law of Gravity. This superseding is based on human understanding of natural law and the premises involved. If God is God as I know he is, then certainly there is another realm of law and another dimension out of which law that operations in this dimension have come. If God through that dimension supersedes law at times in this dimension then what would reasonably happen??? Miracles by virtue of the name temporary superseding of natural law.

    The carnal or materialistic mind is held if not bound to naturalism as a premise and as a matter of fact that very premise isn't supportable by the evidence.

    You said:"He is also described as the creator of rainbows and many other things (weather, earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, etc.) that have since then been found to have naturalistic explanations. So I don't think it's logical to assume God did anything just because people thought he did 2000 years ago. I think it's more logical to assume there are things we don't know now that we will know later, since that has been true at any point in human history"

    Technically speaking, If God created the heaven and earth, he DID create the rainbow. Once again he may allow natural process to bring then to pass, but the creation and ownership of it cannot be said to NOT be his.

    So far as volcanoes etc, none of those things are independent of his creation either. Also none of those natural events are inherently evil. Our development in understanding anything, such as a star, planet, space, does not mean that God didn't start, institute or sustain such things.

    You said:Reversing does not have to be done by outside forces. The human body has amazing natural healing powers. When you cut your arm, the cut can heal without anybody doing anything.

    Yea, and cut it and let it heal itself and you'll also get gang green if you're not careful. May even have to cut off an appendage. The medical professionals did nothing but normal process that was ineffective in reversing the condition. God bless their efforts, but only God gives and sustains life and or allows it to leave the body. There were people in less initial health risk than these men that died under similar good care.

    In response to how long should resuscitation efforts continue, you said "Until the most knowledgeable person or persons regarding medical procedures on site agrees the resuscitation efforts should stop."

    Well the most knowledgeable have already said that it doesn't take that long. They've already said that brain damage occurs after about 5 minutes also. Certainly no more than 10. What if someone says keep doing it for 5 or 10 days because they have conducted some sort of study and they get a group of another quack-pots to agree...That would be a mess.

    We'll get at it when you get back.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You said: "Miracles don't automatically mean that their process is not based on naturalistic premises. Miracles are not "violations" of natural law, they are supersession of natural law.

    eg: We know the effect of gravity on earth. When a plane flies other law(s) come into effect overriding the law of Gravity. This superseding is based on human understanding of natural law and the premises involved."

    Gravity is not suspended or superseded when an airplane flies, it is still very much a part of the equation to determine the total vertical force on the plane. The lift on a plane created by the motion of the wings through the air simply counteracts gravity. When the lift is greater than gravity, the plane is ascending. When the lift is less than gravity, the plane is descending or landed.

    Rather than argue about the definition of a "naturalistic explanation," since the first two definitions of naturalism I looked up online had something about excluding the supernatural, let me rephrase it to this: "an explanation that does not require the suspension or suppression of natural processes."


    You said: "Technically speaking, If God created the heaven and earth, he DID create the rainbow. Once again he may allow natural process to bring them to pass, but the creation and ownership of it cannot be said to NOT be his. . . . Our development in understanding anything, such as a star, planet, space, does not mean that God didn't start, institute or sustain such things."

    The Bible gives God a direct role in rainbows, weather, earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, etc., whereas if God just created everything in the beginning and put in place the natural processes that let them happen, I would consider that an indirect role. In other words, God put things in motion (Big Bang) and then he backed off. My point is that there is no scientific evidence of God having a direct role in rainbows, weather, etc., which means it's reasonable to doubt the inerrancy of the Bible, and it is not logical to assume anything the Bible says about "God did it."

    Brap said: "Reversing does not have to be done by outside forces. The human body has amazing natural healing powers. When you cut your arm, the cut can heal without anybody doing anything."

    Harvey said: "Yea, and cut it and let it heal itself and you'll also get gang green if you're not careful. May even have to cut off an appendage."

    If you don't agree that nothing in your statement about gangrene contradicts my statement about a cut being reversed without outside forces, please substitute the word "bruise" in place of the word "cut." (Let's limit it to a simple bruise with no organ damaged other than the skin.)

    You said: "What if someone says keep doing it for 5 or 10 days because they have conducted some sort of study and they get a group of another quack-pots to agree...That would be a mess."

    If the lead medical person on site thinks 5 or 10 days is reasonable to attempt resuscitation, that's the right thing to do. I suspect, however, that other signs of death may start appearing, so hopefully that new data will not be ignored and they can make a new evaluation on how long to attempt resuscitation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. For the sake of argument, let's agree that the two people profiled in this post were clinically dead for some time period. Let's further agree that being clinically dead for 15 minutes, then revived by any means, natural or otherwise, with no apparent brain damage, is a miracle.

    Is being revived with no apparent brain damage after 14 minutes a miracle? 13? 10? 5? 1 minute? How about after 30 seconds? 10 seconds? 1 second?

    Where do we draw the line between miracle and non-miracle? Or do we just say the existence of life itself is a miracle, therefore simply sustaining life is a miracle, as is any reviving of a life. To me that kinda weakens the impact of the word "miracle" and the phrase "miracle of life after death."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now we cannot want to have it both ways. The laws of nature and medicine tell us that humans cannot live beyond a specific time and if they do they will have some type of damage.

    Thats the "natural" way, so if something goes beyond that as with these two individuals, it seems self serving and a 3 monkey mindset like what Pastor said.

    I have looked up how long the body can last withouth oxygen and I have seen no more than 3-6 minutes before brain cells start to die, so 1 minute and all that would not be miraculous.


    If it goes beyond natural the only other thing is for it to be supernatural. Whatever name we want to call it, Mr. Hume is way off base.

    ReplyDelete
  9. sorry, didnt finish my sentence.

    Thats the "natural" way, so if something goes beyond that as with these two individuals, it seems self serving and a 3 monkey mindset like what Pastor said, to say that they were not really dead, etc and then have no answer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paul said: "I have looked up how long the body can last withouth oxygen and I have seen no more than 3-6 minutes before brain cells start to die, so 1 minute and all that would not be miraculous."

    It sounds like you'd be willing to draw the line at six or seven minutes, give or take a reasonable amount. But regardless of where you draw the line, or how wide it is, I believe your position is that this is the line between something the doctors can explain vs. something that is (or likely is) a miracle.

    My position, however, is that this is the line between something the doctors cannot explain now with the data and knowledge they have vs. something they might be able to explain with additional data (not gathered at the time of the incident) or with additional knowledge the medical profession may gain in the future. Whenever the doctors cannot explain why somebody died, despite appropriate resuscitation efforts, is that considered a miracle (or a tragicle, perhaps)? Medical knowledge advances, and there are medical anomalies, plain and simple. If someone made a list of occurrences the medical profession could not explain 100 years ago and attributed all of them to the supernatural, that list would look utterly ridiculous today based on the current state of medical knowledge, especially if doctors could go back in time and examine the subjects of these supernatural occurrences.


    Paul said: "If it goes beyond natural the only other thing is for it to be supernatural."

    That's a very big "if," since the progress of science through history has continuously been able to explain things that were previously thought to be beyond natural. (See my comments on rainbows, weather, etc. earlier in this thread.) We can't know what actually goes beyond natural, we can only know what cannot be explained with today's knowledge of the natural world.

    It seems like a 3-monkey mindset to jump from "we don't know" to "God did it," because that completely ignores the possibility that we might know later, which is what has clearly happened throughout history.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Brap,

    You said:"Where do we draw the line between miracle and non-miracle? Or do we just say the existence of life itself is a miracle, therefore simply sustaining life is a miracle, as is any reviving of a life. To me that kinda weakens the impact of the word "miracle" and the phrase "miracle of life after death.""

    You track back to a minimal facts position but miracles, by definition, are non-normative events. Therefore the awe of life itself, though miraculous and awe inspiring, is ultimately part of a normal process. Now, what is being talked about are events that are considered by most to be non-normative events. For a person that died and has come back to life is a miracle. It is something that isn't a dime a dozen.

    You said:"Gravity is not suspended or superseded when an airplane flies, it is still very much a part of the equation to determine the total vertical force on the plane. The lift on a plane created by the motion of the wings through the air simply counteracts gravity. When the lift is greater than gravity, the plane is ascending. When the lift is less than gravity, the plane is descending or landed."

    My argument about gravity being superseded stands. You introduce the word "suspend" and I actually like that word better. The Webster 913 definition is: To cause to cease for a time; to hinder from proceeding; to interrupt; to delay; to stay. [1913 Webster] Gravity certainly doesn't cease, but it's effect is certain interrupted. The effects of gravity are overridden by a different set of laws working in tandem. Gravity is not negated, it is overridden.

    Further and more to the point, miracles temporarily override or "suspend" the effects of what we observe that are natural laws or processes. They never cause natural processes not to exist, but a different set of laws and principles, some measured by other natural laws and some that are inexplicable, suspend those that we deem as a normal part of our existence.

    Also God simply doesn't wind it up and let it all go. That's basically the deist position. The biblical God is described as active in, with and through his creation and present at all times without competition. This is why we can have the reasonable certainty that miracles come from God. 1- He is the only one that has promised to be concerned enough with our condition to do something about it. 2- He has demonstrated that ability in history through displaying his power and authority over life, death, sickness and disease, 3- nothing else, natural law or any other deity, has extended any promise to us in any of these areas or places to grant us anything resembling a miracle.

    So when all things are considered it's more reasonable than not to accredit God with miraculous events, and especially those events that better the condition of men and mankind as that is consistent with the nature of Grace and mercy which has been revealed through Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You said: "The effects of gravity are overridden by a different set of laws working in tandem. Gravity is not negated, it is overridden."

    Ok, I'll give you "overriden" as opposed to "suspended" or "superseded." Lift partially overrides gravity when a plane is ascending, and gravity partially overrides lift when a plane is descending. So I think what you're saying is when miracles occur, another element or elements are added to the equation.

    You said: "The biblical God is described as active in, with and through his creation and present at all times without competition. This is why we can have the reasonable certainty that miracles come from God."

    I'll agree that God is described that way in the Bible, but is there any evidence that any of his Biblical miracles actually occurred, other than testimony from an ancient era when people believed in all sorts of supernatural events, miracles, and other gods? I'm also curious how the Pharaoh's magicians duplicated some of God's miracles in Exodus.

    You said: "He has demonstrated that ability in history through displaying his power and authority over life, death, sickness and disease."

    How so?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Brap,

    This is the 3rd time I'm trying this. the other two times blogger failed and erased the comment.

    You said:"So I think what you're saying is when miracles occur, another element or elements are added to the equation."

    Yes sir. Those other elements may or may not be detectable by scientific method but the outcome or result of the element(s) will be.

    You said:"...but is there any evidence that any of his Biblical miracles actually occurred, other than testimony from an ancient era when people believed in all sorts of supernatural events, miracles, and other gods?"

    With this, I hear you making at least a couple of different points. 1- Questioning the authenticity or accuracy of a writing from antiquity that have what is thought to be "mythical" elements and 2- Questions regarding the accuracy or trustworthiness of the bible in general.

    Starting with the latter, I'll simply say that there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the biblical narrative. When examining literature as literature the bible meets tests of literary history, archaeology, and other criteria. the bible has proven itself to be otherwise historically accurate and above reproach. The only questionable part is distinguishing the difference between kerygma and myth.

    I would hold that the "myth" part be examined though. Myths don't develop as the bible did. We can trace the myths that do exist and see them changing over time, adding and deleting certain parts to adapt to what the myth holders were trying to do. This was usually a long process and we KNOW that myths were worked and reworked.

    We have a bible that was written early as compared to other accepted works of antiquity and that is abundant in the copies and proliferation of those copies. From the very earliest point we see no confusion or insertions over the miracles accounted within it. Miracles were never a subject of dispute. In fact the ultimate miracle of the resurrection was the foundation of the salvation of sceptics such as Paul, Thomas and James. These men certainly had an opportunity (even if they accepted Jesus) to destroy any inaccurate mythological content, but they certainly didn't do so. Why? because the miracles of Jesus were not in question.

    In order to understand their actions, you must culturalize them. They were steeped in their religion which had severe and strict penalties for adherence to false religions and myths. These things were especially true in the 1st century.

    So biblical trustworthiness was not a question of antiquity, it is a modern question by those who either misplace or are unaware of certain pieces of the 1st century puzzle.

    If you're like me, I would then say...OK, let's assume that what they taught is accurate so far as in "that's what they said"...just because they said it doesn't make it so. they could have lied about it.

    They could have but it's highly unlikely for a number of reasons.

    1- The skeptics I mentioned had no reason to make life difficult for themselves by perpetuating a "myth". Life would be much easier if they toned down the rhetoric, they didn't and suffered greatly for it.

    see 2

    ReplyDelete
  14. 2

    Brap

    2- The psychology of the early church and leaders does not indicate a lie. Liars tell stuff to take advantage of the people to get some gain or something they can use. Leaders in the early church were interested in the people being good citizens, having good families and leaders themselves placed themselves in a servants position. This is inconsistent with a lie or a control mechanism. What benefits could possibly be gained from telling people to be model citizens, love everybody and serve one another?

    3- Culture. If these people lied and continued the lie they were the worst group of people in their culture and that would be logically inconsistent to what they taught and did. The culture as proven through third party references was more strict in religion and did not allow false worship and myth worship.

    4- Third party references indicate that the works of Jesus were not in dispute. Some claimed that Jesus was a "wise man", "the Christ", hailed by the followers "as if he were a God". These things indicate that long after he was dead the claims were continuing among those called Christian.

    5- Lack of conflicting manuscript and literary evidence. one thing is sure, myths don't tend to recite the same story in ever region. the stories change. What we find is that the stories and teaching about Jesus and his works were so consistent from place to place that we can track when and where any deviations were introduced. This allows almost pinpoint accuracy in examining the texts.

    If it is the fact that miracles are recorded without challenge, variation, or dispute for numerous years, it becomes a very difficult argument to assume that we now know more than the people of antiquity did about certain events themselves.

    All of that makes a case of reasonable certainty about the miracles of Jesus being more than mere myth.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brap,

    you said:"I'm also curious how the Pharaoh's magicians duplicated some of God's miracles in Exodus."

    I think the answer to that is in what the magicians couldn't do. they couldn't reverse a single plague. This was a spiritual contrast of man being unable to rid himself of sin (ie: soul problems and issues) The magicians could add to the problems but they couldn't relive themselves of it...then they had no way to deal with the ultimate problem which was death...

    The magicians, I'm sure either functioned by slight of hand or by some ancient lost knowledge, either way what they had was inadequate and insufficient before God.

    There's could have also been an attempt to minimize the acts of God by saying, "anything you can do we can do better!" But it didn't quite work out that way.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I was going to do a commentary on somethign new as it pertains to thsi subject, but I went ahead and turned it into a new post.

    The Miracle Of Healing vs. Skepticism

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.