redleghunter:
"Also, if your clarification was thus: 'some miracles God used the natural elements under His command to intervene and in others there is absolutely no natural explanation.'
Now IMO that would be Biblically observant as some people were healed with absolutely no natural explanation; yet some as in Hezekiah and Naaman were healed by God by a natural prescription." Agreed, but then you have the example of Noah's world-flood, a historical event for which there is no scientific evidence -- how should we understand that?
Well, there is physical evidence of at least three "world class" floods which could easily have inspired the story -- 1) filling the Mediterranean Sea (5 million years ago), 2) filling the Persian Gulf (8,000 years ago) or 3) filling the Black Sea (5,000 years ago).
The last two were recent enough... or the story could just result from especially large flooding of the Tigris & Euphrates rivers.
We also know about past population minimums, where human race survival depended on a very small number of individuals -- Toba eruption in Indonesia, 70,000 years ago comes to mind.
Regardless, the Bible makes basic points, all of which remain valid, regardless of which specific disaster Noah refers to.
Agreed, but then you have the example of Noah's world-flood, a historical event for which there is no scientific evidence -- how should we understand that?
Frankly, believe it. It is how God communicated the account to Abraham that matters. Eventually, if God wills it we will make the scientific discovery.
"For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”
The above is what we have revealed. Only exceptions to this judgment were the inhabitants with Noah and those in the sea, as God specifies 'face of the earth'.
An example of archaeology catching up to the Biblical account is the Gospel of Luke. 19th Century liberal theologians and skeptics derided Luke's account as historically inaccurate or having to of a historian of later time given the details. However in the early 20th Century Sir William Ramsay set out to 'prove' the skeptics correct and found different (William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915, pg 222).
Some excerpts as the tome is referenced above.
I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth3.
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians4.
3. William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, 1982, pg 8
4. William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915, pg 222
(http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm#Footnote 3)
More detail here on Ramsay
The point being we had, at one point in recent history, a majority of theologians taking aim at the historical details of the Gospel of Luke and Acts. Not long after (25-30 years) such beliefs, assertions or arguments proved premature. I believe we have a similar case with some of the OT historical accounts as well.