Interesting That There Is No Word In The Bible For Natural And Supernatural

[james bond]

The word supernatural was coined by Charles Tart, a psychologist and parapsychologist, who did research on the nature of consciousness (mind-altering drugs), psychokinesis and ESP. The word natural isn't in the Bible either. I could not find who coined it, but "nature vs. nurture" was coined by Frances Galton (notorious for eugenics which led to the Holocaust and black genocide), Darwin's cousin. The word scientist was coined by theologian, William Whewell.

The Scripture does not use the terms "natural" or "supernatural", nor does it use these concepts in particular. The Bible uses the terms "heavenly", "spiritual", "earthy/earthly", "temporal", "seen" and "unseen", etc. The terms "natural" and "supernatural" are in fact secular definitions used to delineate between the physical, measurable existence (natural) and make-believe (supernatural). In other words, for the secularist, the term "supernatural" is where all make-believe has a home, whether God, demons, angels and eternal souls, but also zombies, vampires, pixies, faeries etc. Conversely, the "natural" world is the world where "God is not". The Scripture asserts (Hebrews 1:3) that the entire creation is upheld by the "word of his power". So there is no place in the creation where "God is not". This means that the "natural world" that the secularist believes in, doesn't exist. It's make-believe. And if this is true, then the supernatural world that the secularist designates as make-believe, is completely make-believe. In short, the claims of the secularists of a natural/supernatural world are contrived. There's no such thing as either one. There is only "the creation", made with living creatures and heavenly beings which cohabitate on the same space/matter/time fabric.

Naturalism - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Thus, it seems that man is not the one who made up God, but not God. And thus, we need to redefine some terms in the name of science such as natural and supernatural. They're both self-serving mechanisms.

 

[Kemosloby]

It does use those terms. For example the birth of Isaac and Ishmael. It says one came about in the natural way or normal way and the other by miracle "supernatural".

 

[Father Heathen]

What does it matter whether or not a word is used in the bible? How is ancient goat herder culture relevant when it comes to modern language? They didn't have a word for computer so you better hop off of yours.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm sure very few books of mythology and folk tales explicitly use the word "supernatural."

 

[Nous]

The word supernatural was coined by Charles Tart, a psychologist and parapsychologist, who did research on the nature of consciousness (mind-altering drugs), psychokinesis and ESP.

Dude, get real.

supernatural (n.)
1729, "a supernatural being," from supernatural (adj.). From 1830 as "that which is above or beyond the established course of nature."
supernatural (adj.)
early 15c. "of or given by God," from Medieval Latin supernaturalis "above or beyond nature, divine," from Latin super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature (n.)). Originally with more of a religious sense, "of or given by God, divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since 19c. Related: Supernaturalism.That is supernatural, whatever it be, that is either not in the chain of natural cause and effect, or which acts on the chain of cause and effect, in nature, from without the chain. [Horace Bushnell, "Nature and the Supernatural," 1858]​

Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[crowfeather]

Unable to detect what lies before their very eyes, humans invent all kinds of theories and beliefs, along with words that (don't) describe them.
There is no supernatural or metaphysical; there is only Mystery.
Mystery is the most important facet of life, and is the natural way. It encourages reverence, which is the natural human position towards living.
The WHY is of no importance. It is the IS that counts.
A delightful facet of Spiritual Enlightenment is the hilarious revelation that IT IS all so simple, once the mind is booted off its pedestal.
The master laughs himself silly at his own folly in having never seen life as life is, before he finally sees it.

You get nowhere until you discover what a dimwit you've been.

It's not about WHY you live; it's about LIVING.

 

[Native]

Native people don´t differ between "natural" and "supernatural" - Everything is connected and intertwined in a huge cosmic web as illustrated on this artifact - https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/88/fa/a2/88faa2a2c91cea450611cc4f47619d30.jpg

 

[McBell]

The word supernatural was coined by Charles Tart, a psychologist and parapsychologist, who did research on the nature of consciousness (mind-altering drugs), psychokinesis and ESP. The word natural isn't in the Bible either. I could not find who coined it, but "nature vs. nurture" was coined by Frances Galton (notorious for eugenics which led to the Holocaust and black genocide), Darwin's cousin. The word scientist was coined by theologian, William Whewell.

The Scripture does not use the terms "natural" or "supernatural", nor does it use these concepts in particular. The Bible uses the terms "heavenly", "spiritual", "earthy/earthly", "temporal", "seen" and "unseen", etc. The terms "natural" and "supernatural" are in fact secular definitions used to delineate between the physical, measurable existence (natural) and make-believe (supernatural). In other words, for the secularist, the term "supernatural" is where all make-believe has a home, whether God, demons, angels and eternal souls, but also zombies, vampires, pixies, faeries etc. Conversely, the "natural" world is the world where "God is not". The Scripture asserts (Hebrews 1:3) that the entire creation is upheld by the "word of his power". So there is no place in the creation where "God is not". This means that the "natural world" that the secularist believes in, doesn't exist. It's make-believe. And if this is true, then the supernatural world that the secularist designates as make-believe, is completely make-believe. In short, the claims of the secularists of a natural/supernatural world are contrived. There's no such thing as either one. There is only "the creation", made with living creatures and heavenly beings which cohabitate on the same space/matter/time fabric.

Naturalism - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Thus, it seems that man is not the one who made up God, but not God. And thus, we need to redefine some terms in the name of science such as natural and supernatural. They're both self-serving mechanisms.

 

[Akivah]

The Scripture does not use the terms "natural" or "supernatural"...

It's simply logical. There are 8,674 different Hebrew words in the Hebrew bible. There are at least 75,000 words in the Hebrew language. Therefore, only 11.5% of all the Hebrew words appear in the Tanakh. Thus it is more likely than not, that any randomly selected word does not appear in the bible.

 

[james bond]

It does use those terms. For example the birth of Isaac and Ishmael. It says one came about in the natural way or normal way and the other by miracle "supernatural".

This is what I want to avoid. You are replacing what was said in the Bible. How was the birth described?

"Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael." Genesis 16:16

"Then he gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision. And Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him eight days after his birth. Later Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob became the father of the twelve patriarchs." Acts 7:8

You're also describing a birth as a "normal" birth which implies judgment. I do not know if you've ever experienced being a parent for the first time. Normal birth is not easy to define nor is it descriptive. Again, what you are doing is evaluating the birth, bringing a value judgment into place. It could be described as panic-stricken, worried, stressful, eye opening, smooth, easy or other descriptive adjectives. The word can be inflammatory, too. For example, homosexuality is not normal. Abortion is the normal procedure when a pregnancy is unwanted.

"Natural" birth is used to describe birth without medical procedures. For example, with the help of a midwife a couple may have a birth at a stream without any use of epidural block. With natural as in the naturalism worldview, it is used to refer to a specific set of conditions made up by those with a naturalism worldview. That which doesn't fall within their naturalism worldview, they put it into the supernatural bucket. Thus, by definition they already eliminated God as natural. Do you see how a value judgment was made?

If God is described as "heavenly", "spiritual", "earthy/earthly", "temporal", "seen" and "unseen", etc, then we get a different picture. It isn't making a value judgment, but using adjectives to describe that which exists.

What the naturalists, evolutionists and atheists are saying is, believing in the supernatural is not normal. God is supernatural. Thus, the belief in God is not normal. Doesn't this explain the inflammatory rhetoric that some of these discussions here on RF turn into?

 

[james bond]

What does it matter whether or not a word is used in the bible? How is ancient goat herder culture relevant when it comes to modern language? They didn't have a word for computer so you better hop off of yours.

What if Jesus said this to you instead of John 3:16 as you lay dying, Father Heathen? "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? ... Snakes!
Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell? Matthew 23:33. The words in the Bible are debated constantly.

 

[Kemosloby]

This is what I want to avoid. You are replacing what was said in the Bible. How was the birth described?

"Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael." Genesis 16:16

"Then he gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision. And Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him eight days after his birth. Later Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob became the father of the twelve patriarchs." Acts 7:8

You're also describing a birth as a "normal" birth which implies judgment. I do not know if you've ever experienced being a parent for the first time. Normal birth is not easy to define nor is it descriptive. Again, what you are doing is evaluating the birth, bringing a value judgment into place. It could be described as panic-stricken, worried, stressful, eye opening, smooth, easy or other descriptive adjectives. The word can be inflammatory, too. For example, homosexuality is not normal. Abortion is the normal procedure when a pregnancy is unwanted.

"Natural" birth is used to describe birth without medical procedures. For example, with the help of a midwife a couple may have a birth at a stream without any use of epidural block. With natural as in the naturalism worldview, it is used to refer to a specific set of conditions made up by those with a naturalism worldview. That which doesn't fall within their naturalism worldview, they put it into the supernatural bucket. Thus, by definition they already eliminated God as natural. Do you see how a value judgment was made?

If God is described as "heavenly", "spiritual", "earthy/earthly", "temporal", "seen" and "unseen", etc, then we get a different picture. It isn't making a value judgment, but using adjectives to describe that which exists.

What the naturalists, evolutionists and atheists are saying is, believing in the supernatural is not normal. God is supernatural. Thus, the belief in God is not normal. Doesn't this explain the inflammatory rhetoric that some of these discussions here on RF turn into?

The bible it's between man and God, anything within our abilities or the parameters of physics is natural, anything that defies the laws of nature is a miracle. Sarah was 90 years old when she gave birth to Isaac, that's not normal, that was a miracle birth, supernatural. No reason for anyone to take offense.

 

[james bond]

Dude, get real.

supernatural (n.)
1729, "a supernatural being," from supernatural (adj.). From 1830 as "that which is above or beyond the established course of nature."
supernatural (adj.)
early 15c. "of or given by God," from Medieval Latin supernaturalis "above or beyond nature, divine," from Latin super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature (n.)). Originally with more of a religious sense, "of or given by God, divine; heavenly;" association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since 19c. Related: Supernaturalism.That is supernatural, whatever it be, that is either not in the chain of natural cause and effect, or which acts on the chain of cause and effect, in nature, from without the chain. [Horace Bushnell, "Nature and the Supernatural," 1858]​

Online Etymology Dictionary

I would disagree with this as dictionaries use words to describe that which has become colloquial in their use. We have a difference of over 1400 years. When the Bible was written, it did not distinguish that which was found in nature and beyond nature. Thanks, though. I think it shows the year.

For example, the early 15c backs the description of God with the descriptive terms, divine and heavenly as stated in the Bible. Ghosts predominated since 19c. Also, from 1830 as "that which is above or beyond the established course of nature." The 1800s was when the naturalists Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin took power, so this was when God and ghosts were put into the supernatural box.

 

[james bond]

I looked up supernatural in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and it brings back evil and naturalism in the top two ha ha. Maybe worth reading.

Search (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[james bond]

So, my conclusion is God should not immediately be put in the supernatural box. The words which describe him could make him part of the natural box just as we have powerful, invisible forces in nature..

“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”
—2 Corinthians 4:4

 

[Father Heathen]

You are replacing what was said in the Bible. How was the birth described?

So are you reading the bible in Hebrew as it was originally written? Or are you reading a translation, where - you know - words get replaced?

 

[Father Heathen]

What if Jesus said this to you instead of John 3:16 as you lay dying, Father Heathen? "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? ... Snakes!
Sons of vipers! How will you escape the judgment of hell?

I would retort "By doing this!", then with my final breaths I would knock him out and switch clothes with him.

 

[shunyadragon]

Most ancient cultures of the Middle East and Europe did not make a clear distinction between natural and supernatural, because they considered most of their myths and legends as natural and factual. It was some of the the Greek philosophers Cicero in 1st century BCE and the Romans, Lucretius was a first century AD Roman philosopher and poet that tried to clearly make the distinction.

 

[McBell]

Most ancient cultures of the Middle East and Europe did not make a clear distinction between natural and supernatural, because they considered most of their myths and legends as natural and factual. It was some of the the Greek philosophers Cicero in 1st century BCE and the Romans, Lucretius was a first century AD Roman philosopher and poet that tried to clearly make the distinction.

They did not use the words, but contrary to the OP, they did know the concepts behind the words.

 

[james bond]

So are you reading the bible in Hebrew as it was originally written? Or are you reading a translation, where - you know - words get replaced?

I read the New Revised Standard.