"Hard to Believe"

[Adrift]

Why does this always have to turn into a YEC vs. OEC thing for some people. And how does bickering about it help Scrawly in what is obviously a crisis of faith type question?

[KingsGambit]

Why does this always have to turn into a YEC vs. OEC thing for some people. And how does bickering about it help Scrawly in what is obviously a crisis of faith type question?

No kidding. There are other sections of TWeb where that can be discussed... because I honestly can't think of any issue less crucial to the core of the gospel, which is what we need to be focusing on here.

[oxmixmudd]

Why does this always have to turn into a YEC vs. OEC thing for some people. And how does bickering about it help Scrawly in what is obviously a crisis of faith type question?

I think it ended up here because the OP begins with the 'skeptic' raising issues which include the issue of the literal nature of the opening chapters of Genesis. That led to a discussion of whether or not it made sense to require a skeptic to believe those opening chapters are in fact literal, when the evidence is they are not. That opened the flood gate to the issue of literality of that text, which morphed into a discussion which has become closer and closer to YEC/OEC, though at the current time it is primarily focussed on the issue of the literality of the global nature of the flood, which again calls back to the fundamental questions in the op which concern how to answer a skeptics questions about certain areas of scripture being literal or not.

And to be honest, whenever the issue of 'why should I believe the Bible' comes up, someone somewhere brings up the flood, the age of the Earth, the talking snake, and so forth. Dealing with those issues is kind of hard without at least skirting the issue of OEC/YEC - they are very closely related.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

No kidding. There are other sections of TWeb where that can be discussed... because I honestly can't think of any issue less crucial to the core of the gospel, which is what we need to be focusing on here.

I can assure you it was not my intent to go there in this thread. But neither am I going to be silent about the fact that the treating the opening chapters of genesis as woodenly literal is in fact a stumbling block to any intelligent unbeliever trying to determine if the claims of Christianity and the Bible are valid.


Jim

[RBerman]

Thanks for all your great responses. RBerman, I am not in need of reassurance that Christianity is true, although, I just tend to be honest about my doubts when I have them. I don't think suppressing questions or even emotive doubts is a good thing because I want my "relationship" with God to be the real deal. Anyhow I recieved some wonderful responses that I will continue to think about and incorporate into my prayer.

OK. I have doubts too. But I don't find it healthy or helpful to argue in favor of my doubts against other believers. To do so is not only to be honest about your doubts, but to actually entrench in them.

[Adrift]

I can assure you it was not my intent to go there in this thread. But neither am I going to be silent about the fact that the treating the opening chapters of genesis as woodenly literal is in fact a stumbling block to any intelligent unbeliever trying to determine if the claims of Christianity and the Bible are valid.


Jim

It seems to me that its more a stumbling block for you as evidenced by just about every thread you post in. And I'm glad you found a way to resolve that personal stumbling block, but there are ways to deal with the OP without devolving into an argument about whether or not OEC or YEC is the better alternative. When you get to the root of the OPs question it seems to me arguing OEC vs. YEC misses the forest for the trees.

[oxmixmudd]

OK. I have doubts too. But I don't find it healthy or helpful to argue in favor of my doubts against other believers. To do so is not only to be honest about your doubts, but to actually entrench in them.

Not sure I see it that way Robert. Often we gloss over the issues, or don't pursue the issues rigorously. It is only when the weaknesses in our position are challenged, either by ourselves or by others, that we tend to grow and learn either where we are wrong or what is out there that actually truly reenforces our position. A vigorous exchange with someone who really knows their stuff can bring out nuances that otherwise are left undealt with. The key is having and maintaining faith through the process. If our faith is based on some auxiliary crutch other than the Resurrection and the Deity of Christ, then perhaps we can be in danger. But if that central and core truth is what our faith rests upon, if we draw close to God in the process and seek Him earnestly for wisdom as we engage the issues, then fully exploring other claims - which involves asking the same hard questions a skeptic may ask - should not put is in spiritual danger.

On a personal note, it was in reading Bart Ehrman that I found greater strength in my belief in the inspiration and reliability of scripture. Oftentimes the very elements he viewed as reasons to doubt led me to reasons to believe all the more either because I saw them differently than he did, or it led me to search out robust counters to his position. From my position, the only danger in arguing a position is if that position is in fact the one most strongly supported by the facts. But is God 'afraid' of the truth? (for those of an overly wooden literal bend, this is a rhetorical question - I am fully aware of the answer and the fact God can't possibly be 'afraid'). We act like He is sometimes.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

It seems to me that its more a stumbling block for you as evidenced by just about every thread you post in. And I'm glad you found a way to resolve that personal stumbling block, but there are ways to deal with the OP without devolving into an argument about whether or not OEC or YEC is the better alternative. When you get to the root of the OPs question it seems to me arguing OEC vs. YEC misses the forest for the trees.

If you read the entire thread, you should be able to see I am not arguing whether OEC or YEC is the better alternative. The issues which caused this thread to end up discussing the Noah's Flood on my end are precisely the issues in the OP. In fact my opening post was simply to say (in summary) that one of the problems we face in addressing the skeptic is that if we take a woodenly literal view of Genesis 1-11, we are asking him to believe what simply isn't true and thus putting an unnecessary stumbling block before him. Indeed, the conversation began on my end with a statement to that effect, and the topic was the literalism of the snake/serpent in Genesis 3.

And please note that though over the course of the thread we moved from the literalism of the snake to the literalism of Noah's flood, Noah's flood is not strictly a YEC/OEC issue, Noah's flood is an issue that arises when one discusses the issue of the literalism of the first 11 chapters of Genesis and there are theological issues that stem from it. But we could just as easily have ended up discussing the Tower of Babel, or the the crossing of the Red sea/sea of Reeds, or Sampson's strength. I did not direct the conversation to the flood, but others chose to use it to challenge my position on the non-literalism of Genesis 1-11.

Although I doubt you noticed it, I did amen RBerman's post which said this:

What you can say to such a person is, "I understand your skepticism. Would you be interested in actually sitting down to read the Bible with me, and would you be offended if I pray for you?""

I agree whole-heartedly here. The key to reaching a skeptic is

A) getting him past the issues that make him think you are a superstitious scientific illiterate
B) bring him into contact with the Holy Spirit of God through the study of scripture and prayer, because you and I are NOT going to convince a skeptic there is a God or that Christ is God in the flesh. It is the Holy Spirit that woos person and speaks to them in their heart and spirit, causing them to chose to believe. For a person to believe in God they must in some fashion come face to face with the reality of God. And that happens through Prayer and the Study of Scripture, and by being in contact with the community of faith.



Jim

[Cow Poke]

I think, in fact, that it is the opposite. The issues which caused this thread to end up discussing the Noah's Flood on my end are precisely the issues in the OP. In fact my opening post was simply to say (in summary) that one of the problems we face in addressing the skeptic is that if we take a woodenly literal view of Genesis 1-11, we are asking him to believe what simply isn't true and thus putting an unnecessary stumbling block before him. Indeed, the conversation began on my end with a statement to that effect, and the topic was the literalism of the snake/serpent in Genesis 3.

One thing I have found is that in dealing with a skeptic, once they realize my faith is not based on denying all of modern science, they are much better able to communicate with me on those issues that are the core issues of the faith. But as long as they think I'm all about a massive global flood and a 6000 years old planet etc, they can't see me as a person with a message worth listening to. From their perspective, the rationality of everything and anything I say is suspect because to believe such things make sense intellectually means I simply am either ignorant or confused. The Cross of Christ is sufficient foolishness for the 'Greek'. We don't need to add to it arbitrary foolishness based on our own ignorance.

And please note that Noah's flood is not strictly a YEC/OEC issue, Noah's flood is an issue that arises when one discusses the issue of the literalism of the first 11 chapters of Genesis and there are theological issues that stem from it. But we could just as easily have ended up discussing the Tower of Babel, or the the crossing of the Red sea/sea of Reeds, or Sampson's strength. I did not direct the conversation to the flood, but others chose to use it to challenge my position on the non-literalism of Genesis 1-11.

Although I doubt you noticed it, I did amen RBerman's post which said this:



I agree whole-heartedly here. The key to reaching a skeptic is

A) getting him past the issues that make him think you are a superstitious scientific illiterate
B) bring him into contact with the Holy Spirit of God through the study of scripture and prayer, because you and I are NOT going to convince a skeptic there is a God or that Christ is God in the flesh. It is the Holy Spirit that woos person and speaks to them in their heart and spirit, causing them to chose to believe. For a person to believe in God they must in some fashion come face to face with the reality of God. And that happens through Prayer and the Study of Scripture, and by being in contact with the community of faith.



Jim

Jim,

Who was it, at the retreat at Morton's house, who said "I always start at the Cross"?

I have used that many times in discussions with people.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim,

Who was it, at the retreat at Morton's house, who said "I always start at the Cross"?

I have used that many times in discussions with people.

Don't remember specifically, but it sounds like Kirk or Gordie. It is, however, my primary focus on issue like these, even if perhaps that does not seem obvious from these posts


Jim

[Phat8594]

Ok - not the fossils but the (dead) animals being buried by the sediments.

Sorry..I meant to focus on the "hydrologically" part. It seems to be a categorical error. I don't know how anything could be deposited hydrologically. I'm not trying to start a debate about this...just wanted to point it out for your edification. I am guessing you meant randomly though....

[RBerman]

Not sure I see it that way Robert. Often we gloss over the issues, or don't pursue the issues rigorously. It is only when the weaknesses in our position are challenged, either by ourselves or by others, that we tend to grow and learn either where we are wrong or what is out there that actually truly reenforces our position. A vigorous exchange with someone who really knows their stuff can bring out nuances that otherwise are left undealt with. The key is having and maintaining faith through the process. If our faith is based on some auxiliary crutch other than the Resurrection and the Deity of Christ, then perhaps we can be in danger. But if that central and core truth is what our faith rests upon, if we draw close to God in the process and seek Him earnestly for wisdom as we engage the issues, then fully exploring other claims - which involves asking the same hard questions a skeptic may ask - should not put is in spiritual danger.

On a personal note, it was in reading Bart Ehrman that I found greater strength in my belief in the inspiration and reliability of scripture. Oftentimes the very elements he viewed as reasons to doubt led me to reasons to believe all the more either because I saw them differently than he did, or it led me to search out robust counters to his position. From my position, the only danger in arguing a position is if that position is in fact the one most strongly supported by the facts. But is God 'afraid' of the truth? (for those of an overly wooden literal bend, this is a rhetorical question - I am fully aware of the answer and the fact God can't possibly be 'afraid'). We act like He is sometimes.

Different people are different. (Obviously.) Someone who's strong in his faith can fish in the seas of unbelieving scholarship and benefit both himself and others with what he finds. That's not the vibe that I get from Scrawly in this and other threads, though. Scrawly has had, and is having, a difficult life in general, divorced from fellowship/friendship in general and the local church in particular. His needs are great and many. He's not trying to be the next Ravi Zacharias. He's trying to make it until tomorrow, and for that he needs not the innoculation that comes from reading and discussing unbelief and unbelievers. He needs what I said in the post you quoted above. He needs the centrality of the gospel preached in his life and lived in his presence by Christians who know him personally, can hear his doubts personally, and can pray with him and for him.

[oxmixmudd]

Sorry..I meant to focus on the "hydrologically" part. It seems to be a categorical error. I don't know how anything could be deposited hydrologically. I'm not trying to start a debate about this...just wanted to point it out for your edification. I am guessing you meant randomly though....

Ok - not to continue a debate, but to clarify my point and use of the term:

Denser/Larger items deposit first, less dense objects second, and the least dense objects last. Hydrological sorting is a term that shows up a lot in creationist YEC literature and is sometimes used in an attempt to explain the rigid sorting of fossils by type in the sediments. It refers to the idea that items suspended in water would tend to sort themselves according to relative density as they settled out. The problems with that are two fold,

1) the fossils are sorted, but not according to any natural principle associated with hydrodynamics. The are sorted by relative time of deposition.
2) sorting according to density could be expected only in still water, not the kind of turbulent waters expected in such a massive and violent event. There in reality would be no sorting expected from that kind of event, but rather just a chaotic jumbling of items mixed in with the sediments.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Different people are different. (Obviously.) Someone who's strong in his faith can fish in the seas of unbelieving scholarship and benefit both himself and others with what he finds. That's not the vibe that I get from Scrawly in this and other threads, though. Scrawly has had, and is having, a difficult life in general, divorced from fellowship/friendship in general and the local church in particular. His needs are great and many. He's not trying to be the next Ravi Zacharias. He's trying to make it until tomorrow, and for that he needs not the innoculation that comes from reading and discussing unbelief and unbelievers. He needs what I said in the post you quoted above. He needs the centrality of the gospel preached in his life and lived in his presence by Christians who know him personally, can hear his doubts personally, and can pray with him and for him.

ok - I don't know anything about Scrawly specifically and of course was not trying to address the issue on that specific of a level.

Scrawly - hang in there.



Jim

[Scrawly]

OK. I have doubts too. But I don't find it healthy or helpful to argue in favor of my doubts against other believers.

I understand, but I find this method actually can be quite helpful because I am not disregarding Christianity when I mimic the objections of an unbeliever. I always strive to set apart Christ as Lord because I am convicted as to the core of the gospel.

To do so is not only to be honest about your doubts, but to actually entrench in them.

If I was merely arguing in favor of my doubts without prayer I would agree.