On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 08:41:41 -0500 Moorad Alexanian
<alexanian@uncwil.edu> writes:
> I find it hard to believe that people leave their faith because there
> are no
> Christian apologetics around to answer their doubts. What is wrong
> with
> going to the original source, the Bible? Scientists go to the
> original
> source, nature, to answer questions, don't they? As I Christian I
> believe
> the Truth lies in Scripture, just as the truth about nature lies in
> nature
> itself and not necessarily in the minds of researchers. I think the
> reason
> for leaving the Christian faith is manifold, but I find it hard to
> believe
> that it is the one you give.
>
> Moorad
>
I can answer your question because I lived through it. Because I was
taught YEC, when I went to the Bible I found that the earth was created
in 144 hours about 6,000 years ago. I thought this was certain. I still
have piles of notes that I collected supporting this position. I would
have to have been much more sophisticated to have understood that there
were alternatives.
In grad school I first read the original journal articles on dating. Then
I discovered that there was no chance that the dates could be off by more
than a factor of 2 or 3, not the orders of magnitude required for a
creation 6-10,000 years ago. By God's grace, I did not chuck the Bible. I
recognized that His Word and His creation came from the same Source and
had to agree. Therefore, the problem had to be with how men interpreted
them, what men said they taught. With that, I began to recognize that the
selected quotations supporting YEC were taken out of context or otherwise
distorted the evidence, and that other claims were based on ignorance and
even fraud.
I think some of the problem springs from what one reads first. The Gospel
of John has one kind of impact, if its message is acted upon. Genesis,
especially with the stridency seen notably in Kansas, for example, and
more generally in evangelical churches, will normally have the opposite
effect on those who have a background in biology and geology. The result
may depend on either temporal priority or which has the greater impact.
Your comment suggests to me a related claim: The Bible has the answer.
Some folks who proclaim this insist that all they need to know is the
Bible. They overlook the fact that nowhere in scripture is there anything
about cultivating and fertilizing crops. If I went by the only passage
(wheat and tares) that notes weeding, I'd say, "Don't." They also
overlook the fact that the Word has been interpreted in enough different
ways to provide a basis for numerous denominations and, on occasion,
vicious and perverse actions. To note but one matter, it is logically
necessary that Calvin, Luther, the pope and Zwingli cannot all be right
about the Lord's Supper. Though the followers of each usually insist,
almost always tacitly, that "my view is right because it takes the Word
strictly as it stands," the fact is that each is based on interpretations
of the relevant passages. It is very difficult for anyone to recognize
his own bias, so most proclaim, "I have none."
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 09 2000 - 13:36:23 EST