Must we be able to prove a miracle for it to believable?
CNN reported recently that researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado at Boulder have determined it is scientifically possible that the Red Sea parted as described in Exodus 14. (Here’s the key part of the story: “Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left” – Exodus 14:21-22, ESV).
According to the news report, in order “to test the theory that the biblical account may have depicted actual events, the researchers studied maps, archaeological records and satellite measurements to find [a location] where such an event might have been possible” (Orlando Sentinel, September 22, 2010, p A3).
This is the latest ‘scientific verification’ of a biblical miracle, but can a miracle be ‘proven’? Does it matter if a miracle described in the Bible is or is not validated by scientific investigation?
If a miracle is, by definition, an event which is contrary to the normal activity of God in nature (some use the term ‘supernatural’), should we expect it to be scientifically verifiable? Can you ‘prove’ a miracle?
We could examine the biblical miracles one by one: healing the lepers, giving sight to the blind, enabling the lame to walk, curing all types of diseases…. Certainly the miracle that tops them all – even more than the Virgin Birth -- is raising the dead. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the cornerstone of Christianity. The Apostle Paul said, “if Christ is not raised, your faith is in vain.”
No one has been brought back from the dead after three days in a grave (or the morgue) except Jesus Christ. It’s not necessary that his bodily resurrection be ‘proven’ beyond what is stated in the Christian Bible for that event to be true. There are other proofs which have been detailed by apologists throughout the centuries, but if the Scriptures are authoritative as the inspired Word of God, that is enough. Either the Bible is true or it is not. It cannot be ‘kind of’ or ‘almost’ true about such a central and vital teaching as the resurrection of Jesus.
A miracle is an event that cannot be explained by natural law. Scientific validation comes through repeating something in a laboratory. In the case of the flood study cited in the CNN report, the researchers were convinced because their computer model matched “fairly closely” the Exodus account.
How close does science have to get to biblical truth to convince you? I didn’t need convincing. I’m a believer.
