Practical Apologetics/OT Question

[Guest]

Hi, I'm new to this forum and thought I'd post a question. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts about ways to respond to a non-Christian whose primary stumbling block is a difficulty taking seriously some of the Old Testament narratives, such as the Garden of Eden account, Noah and the flood, etc. In my experience, there are a number of people who are open to the New Testament narrative and to the possibility of the miraculous as a genral matter, but who get hung up on the idea that there was a talking serpent who tempted the first woman to eat fruit, etc. And at the same time, many such people tend to be suspicious (understandably, I think) of attempts to read these difficult passages allegorically in order to avoid these seeming historical implausibilities. I have to admit that these issues still trouble me to some extent and I continue to struggle with the proper interpretation of some of the OT stories. I believe that if I had a greater comfort in this area (with the garden of Eden and Noah stories being the primary examples), I could be more effective in living up to my obligations under 1 Peter 3:15.

I know this is a highly vague question, but if anyone happens to have any thoughts or suggested resources in this area, they would be much appreciated.

Best regards,

CThomas

[Guest]

II have run into some similar situations as well, mostly from a supposed "scientific" point of view. Since science has "proven" something then the bible can't be right. I used to think that solid argument based on logic would be sufficient to convert someone. I still think you need some level of response to most questions, but I find it helpful to remember that I don't have to sell God.

Just give your testimony in your words and deeds and let the Holy Spirit do the rest. If someone has specific questions there are lots of places you can point them. Most of the folks in this forum are very helpful. They have helped me quite a bit.

tim

[Guest]

Hi, I'm new to this forum and thought I'd post a question. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts about ways to respond to a non-Christian whose primary stumbling block is a difficulty taking seriously some of the Old Testament narratives, such as the Garden of Eden account, Noah and the flood, etc. In my experience, there are a number of people who are open to the New Testament narrative and to the possibility of the miraculous as a genral matter, but who get hung up on the idea that there was a talking serpent who tempted the first woman to eat fruit, etc. And at the same time, many such people tend to be suspicious (understandably, I think) of attempts to read these difficult passages allegorically in order to avoid these seeming historical implausibilities. I have to admit that these issues still trouble me to some extent and I continue to struggle with the proper interpretation of some of the OT stories. I believe that if I had a greater comfort in this area (with the garden of Eden and Noah stories being the primary examples), I could be more effective in living up to my obligations under 1 Peter 3:15.

I know this is a highly vague question, but if anyone happens to have any thoughts or suggested resources in this area, they would be much appreciated.

Best regards,

CThomas

Why don't you pray to the Holy Spirit instead of asking fallible men?

[Guest]

Thanks to you both for the helpful and thoughtful replies. Asimov -- I didn't view your two options (prayer to the Holy Spirit and asking fallible men) as mutually exclusive. I usually find it most effective in these sorts of situations to do both. But I appreciate your perspective.

Regards,

CThomas

[_Rick_C]

Hello CThomas, and welcome to this forum,

On "the Bible and science" and, in particular, with regard to the Genesis Creation Accounts; this excerpt pretty well much sums how I see things:

Mailing list discussion:
Re: "After Fundamentalism":
book by Bernard Ramm, 1983

Excerpted:

"Another way of resolving the problem of a revelation written in a
prescientific period and yet retaining current authority is to make a
distinction between the literary genre of the passage and its
theological message. The genre is prescientific, the message is
theological...James Orr, the great Reformed theologian, followed a
similar strategy in his effort to harmonize the biblical record with
modern scientific knowledge. The Oriental genre is the vehicle
through which the revelation comes and is not binding; but the
theological message it conveys is binding." (Ramm B.L., 1983,
p152).

In addition, Barth makes a distinction between a passage's literary
genre and its message:

"(Barth's) first step is to let the Genesis record stand as it is, a product
of the prescientific world with its prescientific cosmologies. Without
question, the cosmological backdrop in Genesis 2 is different from the
backdrop in Genesis 1. Furthermore, between Genesis 1 and
Revelation 22 many other cosmologies are introduced. According to
Barth, the only sensible thing is to admit the multiplicity. In this
connection, Barth makes one of his rare comments on obscurantism.
He says it has never won a battle-so why fight over the many biblical
cosmologies?" (Ramm B.L., 1983, p153).

"Barth's second step is to tell us that this multiplicity should not
distress us. Christian theologians have used all kinds of cosmologies,
from Plato's famous Timaeus to Aristotle's, Ptolemy's, Newton's, and
Einstein's. Yet the diversity has not disturbed our theological
craftsmanship. There is no common cosmology behind Sacred
Scripture. There is no common cosmology behind Christian theology.
So therefore the cosmological issue should not be a big issue in the
Scriptures nor Christian theology. If one demands that the Scripture
be innocent in the matter of cosmology, then we could not write
theology until Einstein!" (Ramm 1983, p153)

"The third step is to assert that these texts (Genesis 1-3) are the
Word of God. The Word of God is "in, with, and under" the
cosmology. The cosmology is not the Word of God, but the message
within the cosmology is the Word of God. Revelation does not intend
to teach science, and therefore the Word of God is independent of the
cosmology. Therefore neither Holy Scripture or Christian theology is
involved in teaching cosmology. The theological teaching of the text
does not compete with modern cosmological explanations of the
universe." (Ramm 1983, p153).

I have to admit that these issues still trouble me to some extent and I continue to struggle with the proper interpretation of some of the OT stories. I believe that if I had a greater comfort in this area (with the garden of Eden and Noah stories being the primary examples), I could be more effective in living up to my obligations under 1 Peter 3:15.

I should say that I'm a former fundamentalist on these kinds of issues (the controversial stuff that fundamentalists are concerned with). Of course, what we mean by "fundamentalist" comes into question....
I believe in a literal, bodily resurrection of Christ which could be seen as "fundamentalist." But on most controversial issues that fundamentalists get involved with I'm closer to theological liberalism than fundamentalism, though I see myself as an evangelical and that my fundamentalist brothers & sisters are: brothers & sisters in Christ.

1 Peter 3:15, NASB
but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

I try to be ready to give reasons about my hope in Christ. 1 Peter 3:15 is about that, and that alone, imo. When asked, I tell of the first coming of Christ, how He entered into my life, and that I intend -- and hope -- to be with Him when He comes again, according to His promise. I tell how I used to be (my sinful life) and what my life is like now: My victories over sins through Christ and how I now have my mind set on living a holy and godly life!

2 Peter 2, NIV
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

You and I are looking forward to a new heavens and a new earth which will be something like, yet even better than, the original Garden of Eden. I tell people this! That God is going to restore things back to how He originally intended them to be!

In my experience, there are a number of people who are open to the New Testament narrative and to the possibility of the miraculous as a genral matter, but who get hung up on the idea that there was a talking serpent who tempted the first woman to eat fruit, etc.

Karl Barth was once asked, "Did the serpent in the Garden of Eden literally speak to the woman?" Barth paused and slowly began to reply, "Did... the serpent... literally?... speak?... to her?" Then suddenly, "But: What did the serpent say!?!?' -- is the question!" (was his answer, not exact wording). I say the same thing to people when they ask about this. If they don't know what the devil said, I educate them!

Revelation 22, NIV
12"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

14"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

What kinds of trees were they in the Garden of Eden? Literal trees just like we know them? Maybe, maybe not. The imagery is plenty effective enough for me! By faith I know that, when we get to the new earth, we will eat from that very same Tree of Life that Adam and Eve almost ate from! They would have lived forever (Gen 2:9, 2:22ff). And so will we!!!

CThomas, ask your unbelieving friends if they would like to eat from it too! (I've done this and people look at me odd-like)...But I tell them the Bible is fascinating! and its God is terribly awesome!

Beyond this, I say, "The Bible is a written record of those who experienced its God -- and then -- they wrote about it." And how this experience goes back to ancient times, that people have known the God of the Bible for a long, long time....right up to us!

I also regularly give lessons in Bible hermeneutics, pointing out it was written over a long period of time by many people, using many different literary genres and styles -- for different purposes -- that you have to study to find out! Sometimes unbelievers are really taken in with this! (as some believers are too...who don't really study the Bible)!

As to the NT narrative and the possibility of (its) miracles???:
The Creation had no (human) witnesses. The Genesis Creation Accounts are pre-historical in this sense (no one was there to actually see and later write about it). The NT, on the other hand, reports eye-witness accounts of the resurrection of Jesus within (recorded) history. So the resurrection of Jesus is a different kind (or type) of history than the Creation Accounts: the resurrection had eye-witnesses: Creation did not. For apologetics, the resurrection of a man 2,000 years ago (not that long ago, really) is FAR more important than the origin of the universe and the details of just how that all came about: God made it, He sent His son to save it, and that settles it! not a problem, imo

Questions I ask when asked about my hope in Christ:
But, tell me, what did the serpent say?
Do you want to eat from the: Tree of Life?
How would you like to become a permanent resident in an entirely new earth (with a new universe & everything!)?
Would you like to know how to live a holy life?
(list goes on & on)...Amen!

In Jesus,
Rick

P.S. In recent weeks on my job I really have been asked lots of things about God & the Bible by a guy I work with...and I really have said these things to him (asked above questions to him too)! He told me he started praying more and has been talking about God with his family (which he hasn't done in a long time).......Okay, Praise the Lord!

[_Rick_C]

P.S.S. a related article:

Changing Views of Science and Scripture:
Bernard Ramm and the ASA
by Joseph L. Spradley
Physics Department
Wheaton College
Wheaton, IL 60187
March, 1992

"If theologians restrict themselves to the Word of God and pure theological statements ...then theologians will never say anything contrary to science." If science and theology are governed in their methodology by the nature and context of the subject matter they investigate "the conflict between science and theology" would be removed.

I like that. Note how this differs from the fundamentalist perspective that "Science is compatible with the Bible" or "some day will be."

Think, Paul in Acts 17:16ff....
He speaks of God as Creator and doesn't delve into any current cosmology or scientific theory: No, not at all! If Paul didn't, why should we? I can't think of any reasons to, myself. Even Romans chapter one has not a hint of science.

The Bible is theological! (about God and our relation to Him). It's NOT a science text book! imnsho.....

Anyway, ok, ok, enuf from me

[Guest]

CThomas, I have a friend who's an atheist/agnostic. We hang out and talk about the bible every so often. In our lengthy conversations together, I've managed to answers his various criticisms and yet he's always unable to answer my own objections. He even seems to agree with most of what I say. We've been doing this for more than two years. He's still no closer to being a Christian than he was at first.

I tell you this to illustrate a point: You can't argue someone into the Kingdom of God. If the person with whom you are debating has better arguments, he'll obviously feel confirmed in his non-belief. If your arguments are clearly better than his, he will most likely get defensive and try to save face by calling you names or withdrawing from the conversation. Then again, I don't want to place people into categories so your milage may vary.

There's also the type of non-believer who's like my friend. He just likes to play devil's advocate, no matter if he wins or loses the debate. I feel he has no intentions of changing his views, yet he likes to seem "open to the idea." I doubt his sincerity because if you could argue someone into the Kingdom, this guy would be a saint by now.

But be encouraged, brother... I've had success with other non-believers using basic apologetics. I've also had apologetics screw me over once when I responded to a young woman's concern by using a logical argument and what she really needed was a hug. I'm sure my response sounded quite cold in retrospect. So be careful... what you say can bite you if you're not careful. People are individuals and you can't approach them all the same way. When it comes to literalness of given passages, I think Rick gave you some food for thought. I'm just speaking to the general use of apologetics.

[Guest]

ways to respond to a non-Christian whose primary stumbling block is a difficulty taking seriously some of the Old Testament narratives, such as the Garden of Eden account, Noah and the flood, etc


IMO the garden of Eden account is real but it's possible it could be metaphorical and meant to give a symbolic account how Adam (mankind) fell into sin. And IMO the flood was a localized flood around the area where the garden of Eden probably was which was the northern Persian gulf.
So if these really are obstacles for your friend then there is room for non literal interpretations. Hopefully your friend is sincere.

[_Rick_C]

CThomas,
for when you get back here,

Steve (Gregg) has a "Creation -- Evolution" series in his Topical Lectures f you might find useful. His site: http://www.thenarrowpath.com/

So if these really are obstacles for your friend then there is room for non literal interpretations.

Though I have the non-fundamentalist views I wrote about above; I also have room for folks who have literal interpretations. To me, these differences are secondary and non-essential for fellowship, etc. (I rarely debate other Christians on this kind of stuff, just voice my imo's on the internet from time to time), lol

But be encouraged, brother... I've had success with other non-believers using basic apologetics.

Yes. Some people do come toward belief in God by way of philosophical investigation and looking into various ideas (different beliefs) about Creation and/or cosmology. I met a guy who studied the Classical Arguments for the existence of God first for several years, then came to believe there was a God and, not long after that, became a Christian.

However, just for me anyway, when non-believers ask and want "proofs" or arguments for the existence of God, or details about Creation...I basically have nothing to offer them. I tell them the grave is empty and Christ REIGNS! All I ever say in terms of any kind of argumentation is, "Only God can prove God" (as I'm a moderate fideist on most of these things). When they question the validity of my statement my usual reply is, "I'm sorry but you will need to ask Him about that".....

Yet as JC says, apologetical approaches can lead to an openness there may be a God. Some people take this more rational approach in coming toward faith. I don't see this as wrong or bad or anything. It's just that, for me, I can't offer much for people along these lines...as I'm not convinced of the arguments myself!

JC,

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

Just some purposeful thoughts in a universe filled with meaning,
Rick

[Guest]

I've also had apologetics screw me over once when I responded to a young woman's concern by using a logical argument and what she really needed was a hug.

Yep, I can definitely understand this one! My guess is that apologetics could only be successful with a women if she wasn't in a crisis situation. Even as a believer, I don't want a logical argument until I've sorted out my emotions first. It's not that I don't want to be logical, or that I don't welcome sorting through things logically... I just have to sort through emotions first before I can start thinking about how to resolve something. I think this is true for most women.

----------------------------

There is a friend of ours who, I believe, is an evangelist. He uses traditional apologetics from time to time (although I think he tends to lean towards a presupppositional approach most of the time -- "You know there's a God") Anyway, his main "apologetics" that he uses with unbelievers are miracle stories and demon stories. I've seen this be very effective at times on the college campus where we were for 9 years (helping students to see that the spiritual world is indeed real).

I'm not the greatest story teller, so I don't think I would be good at that, but it seems to work well with him.