Practical Apologetics/OT Question

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:46 pm

Hi CThomas,

Welcome, and thanks for bringing up a very interesting question!

I think the key is in not trying to read the Hebrew scriptures with a wooden literalism. To do so is to impose an artificial structure upon them. They're just not that simple (as much as we might wish they were). Rather, we must engage in a certain degree of textual analysis. This involves asking questions about the writings, such as:

Who wrote them: Are there certain characteristics about the communication methods of the culture that produced the documents? For example, ancient Hebrew literature tends to be "pictoral" and expressive to the point of hyperbole.

Why were they written: What was the occasion that caused them to be written?

Who were they written to: What was the original agenda?

What did it mean to the original hearers? How would they have understood it?

What is the genre being used? Is it Historical Narrative? Poetry? Myth/Epic/Fable? Etc., etc.

The comparison I've drawn to some early OT stories such as the Temptation of Eve by the Serpent and the Flood is our contemporary story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. We all know the story, but is the story true? That depends on how you are defining "truth". If by "true" I mean, "Did the events portrayed in the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf actually occur at some point in history?", your honest answer would probably be "I don't know." On the other hand, if by true I mean, "Does the story convey truth?" You would probably answer, "Yes." The next question is, "Is the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf intended to be a historical narrative or is it intended to convey a truth." You would probably agree that the story is intended to convey a truth. So then, does the story fulfill its intended purpose? I think you would agree that it does.

Going back to the OT stories of Serpent, Flood, etc., we need to ask these same questions. Were these stories intended to be accurate historical narratives or where they intended to portray truths about God and man using a genre that was familiar to the original hearers (but may not be as familiar to us)?

To summarize then, I don't have a problem with understanding these stories as not being literally true yet being very true to their purpose of conveying truths and, as such, being inspired.

I think this provides a doorway to discussing these stories with non-Christians and, rather than getting stuck on trying to provide scientific evidences for the stories, getting to the actual truths (about God and mankind) that the stories convey.

Post by **_Sean** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:51 am

I would just ask them the question: "Where did we come from?"
What I mean is, get them thinking about how the universe came into being and how life began on the earth. If one spends more than a few moments contemplating this, it shouldn't take long before you realize that either:

-All matter came from nothing. Nothing created it nor caused it to appear. It just happened for no knowable reason that everything came from nothing when it (nothing) exploded in the (faith) theory known as the big bang.

OR

-God created all things by His will and power.

and

-All life came from non-life. For some reason various chemicals came into existence on their own. It just so happened that they combined in just the right way to form a living organism. No reason other than that, it just happened. We all came from soup.

OR

-God created all life

I spent most of my life as someone who was very apposed to any faith based belief system and would not believe in "bible stories" that contained miracles. Now that I am a Christian, I realize that my problem wasn't the stories themselves, but the fact that God and His miracles are mentioned.

Without God, you still must account for life, life's purpose and creation. When you go down this road, you have to accept some pretty fanciful things like life coming from non-life, even the moon itself is miraculous! This planet could not sustain life without it, it's too massive to have been captured by the earth's gravity and it's too close to have come from the earth itself (as some scientist suggest) and when it lines up with the sin it just happeneds to cover up the sun perfectly, creating a solar eclipse and revealing the suns (normally invisible) corona. But that's just luck I guess.

So I don't think there is anything in the bible that's too amazing to believe when you consider the opinions about creation and life without God. Those stories are more amazing to me. The problem is God, if people believe the stories and the miracles, then belief in God is part of the package. Since I've seen a few but enough of the miraculous from God since becoming a Christian, I could never doubt that aspect of the faith again. So in addition to what I said, I would also agree that if anyone prays with a heart toward seeking God, He will prove Himself and His word true.

Post by **_Rick_C** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:51 am

Rae,

You weren't posting to me but:
Thank you for what you said about emotions and logic (from a woman's viewpoint). I have a lady friend (a special one)...you helped me understand some things about her better. She helps me out on that too.
Anyway, off-topic but thanks

Mort,

I wonder how Genesis would "read" if it wasn't written till today? I mean, if its author(s) lived now and actually had the scientific information we do (keeping in mind they didn't have it back then).

If they asked for my input I'd say: "Write it exactly like it is in the Bible. But don't add any science to it because it's just fine how it already is. Please copy & paste it from Biblegateway.com, (cept do several versions with chapters and verse numbers, k?)."

Genesis 1:1 NSV ("New Science Version")
"In the beginning (which was probably about 4.3 billion years ago, maybe, we think) God (this version is not prepared to describe "God" as "He" is not subject to scientific investigation; See, Pre-scientific Religious Myths and Cosmologies, and; Theism) created (possibly instantaneously via the big bang, possibly over an indefinite period of time, maybe some other way like in increments, how could we possibly-know? Is there a God?)........."....
That...just doesn't "read" the best, doesn't say much, Huh, Brother Mort?

Sean,

You wrote:....So in addition to what I said, I would also agree that if anyone prays with a heart toward seeking God, He will prove Himself and His word true.

I took witnessing classes some time back. We were taught to advise people to, "Ask God that if He is real, to reveal Himself to you." (My cousin did this and eventually got saved). But the thing of it is: If one is asking-God...don't they sort of, like, have faith already? lol

Paul may have alluded to something "like" this with,
"He is not far from each of us" (Acts 17:27b)

Edited some stuff out, Sept. 12th,
Rick

Post by **_JC** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:27 am

Rick wrote:

Could you please give an example of a success you had with apologetics? (You got me curious now)!

I've had success with several members of my family who turned from agnosticism to Christianity. Apologetics helped open them up, but the Holy Spirit gave conviction. My old roomate also converted... due, in part, to our lengthy discussions about faith and reason.

My own approach is a mixture of pre-suppositionalism and basic logic... kind of the way Sean describes. I'm far more worried about stumbling a non-believer by my actions than in presenting a poorly thought out apologetic. You can have the best arguments around, but if the way you live your life is unimpressive, I'm not going to listen to you.

Post by **_Asimov** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:45 pm

JC wrote:Rick wrote:

Could you please give an example of a success you had with apologetics? (You got me curious now)!
I've had success with several members of my family who turned from agnosticism to Christianity. Apologetics helped open them up, but the Holy Spirit gave conviction. My old roomate also converted... due, in part, to our lengthy discussions about faith and reason.

My own approach is a mixture of pre-suppositionalism and basic logic... kind of the way Sean describes. I'm far more worried about stumbling a non-believer by my actions than in presenting a poorly thought out apologetic. You can have the best arguments around, but if the way you live your life is unimpressive, I'm not going to listen to you.

Good to know you're catching people off-guard with pseudo-epistemology and then entrapping them emotionally.

Post by **__id_2243** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:44 pm

Hey, thanks to all very much for the thoughts and resources. This is all really hugely helpful. (I've been traveling, and hence the delay in responding.) And if anyone is looking for an example of apologetic successes, you need look no farther than me, as the Holy Spirit used apologetic materials as the primary mechanism of drawing me to Christianity.

Thanks again, and best regards. I'm going to look up these resources and especially Steve Gregg's series on this issue, as suggested. Steve strikes me as a model of thoughtful and balanced discussion, and I have been immensely impressed by my limited exposure to his work (which so far has consisted of listening to his Church history series, reading his book on Revelation, and a few radio interviews).

CThomas

Post by **_JC** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:51 pm

Asimov wrote:

Good to know you're catching people off-guard with pseudo-epistemology and then entrapping them emotionally.

And here I expected our resident atheist to agree with me.

Could you possibly expound on what you've written above? Was it the part about me living in accordance with my profession that you found objectionable? Maybe the part about me using basic logic? Should I instead rely on theories that are over the heads of those with whom I'm talking? That's certainly not entrapment.

Post by **__id_2243** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:55 pm

Ugh. I didn't know Asimov was an atheist, and I completely missed the facetious character of his question to me earlier in this discussion. Obviously my serious answer was non-responsive. My bad, Asimov.

CThomas

Post by **_JC** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:02 pm

CThomas, don't feel bad. Asimov likes to rouse up discussion. I'm glad he/she is here. Despite his/her motives, the advice given about the Holy Spirit was indeed sound.

Post by **__id_2243** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:29 pm

Agreed. To clarify, I was just frustrated with myself for being dense, rather than being frustrated with Asimov. The handle should have tipped me off! But you're right, facetious or not, the advice was quite sound.

CThomas