Hi everyone! I found myself in a debate with my wife’s uncle. Firstly it was weird how he changed his stance in front of family members. Our previous encounter was very deep and meaningful and we uncovered some huge issues in his life. This time around he put up a different front and was very agnostic. First question, is there any differences in approaching someone in a group environment vs one on one. Secondly he brought up Noah’s ark and how it never has been found. Seems like sceptics often use this as a springboard to discredit the bible. Any advise would be appreciated.
My first response would be to ask why he believes we would find the ark. Ask what causes him to believe that we would. After all, the ark was made of wood. And wood has a tendency to rot. Why would this wood survive thousands of years?
I suspect this is a defensive ploy. But do not assume this, ask questions and allow him to explain his ideas. Then you will know what needs to be answered and what is a red herring.
Hi @jacque, I think it’s good that he is asking questions which can open up opportunities for you to engage in more conversations to evangelize. I came across this video which talks about Noah’s Ark being on Mt Ararat. I’m not sure how accurate the findings are and hope that someone else will comment on its authenticity or lack thereof.
I pray that God will give you wisdom and favor, and lead you to resources to help you with your evangelistic efforts. Oftentimes with family members, much patience is required but they will eventually see your love for them and come around.
Very true!! Thanks for this!
@jacque That is a great question and this is a common objection. Here are a few resources I hope you find helpful. The book on myths is very interesting because it argues that the prevalence of global flood myths points to the reliability of the flood story. Hugh Ross and Jo Vitale both point out that the flood may have been global - it covered the entire world - or it may have been local - it only flooded the areas into which humans had spread and populated. Intelligent Christians stand on both sides of the local/global flood debate. If the flood was local, then there was no need to have every species of animal on the entire earth - only those from that area of the world that were needed to repopulate it. Also, if it was local, a lot of the issues with how much water would have been required, etc just go away. I personally think the flood was local.
Read Jo Vitale’s response for more details on the arguments for local / global flood.
The challenge for us in interpreting the biblical flood narrative is that you will find highly educated Christian theologians and scientists putting forward a strong case on both sides of the debate! On the one hand, you can find a very thorough and thoughtful case made by those who are convinced that the flood was global in scope. On the other hand, you will find Christians equally committed to the flood being a localised event.
@Helen_Tan I do not think Wyatt’s claims are reputable - here are a few articles from Answers In Genesis pointing out that these claims are invalid in some detail.
Thanks, @SeanO, that’s really good to know! I’ve heard preachers share on this and wondered why it’s not more widely known.
@Helen_Tan Yep - I think that the prevalence of flood myths is actually very strong evidence that there was some form of large catastrophic event.
In terms of geologic evidence for, and of the physics problems of, a geoglobal Flood, Hugh Ross cites what seems to be only two conceivable, and radically different, models of a recent geoglobal Flood: The Catastrophic model, and the Tepid model.
I have not paid sufficient attention to his words in this video to be sure he did not mean the Tepid model strictly as a Local Flood model. But, in the very fact that he mentioned the idea of a Tepid Flood model, it suggested to me the idea that he was referring to a geoglobal event of Tepid forces: that he was presenting to us two radically different models of a geoglobal Flood.
Cannot a geoglobal Flood with Ark survivors be Tepid? Cannot it even be something between Tepid and a physically impossible and survivor-less Catastrophy? Why does a Catastrophic geoglobal Flood have to be a physically impossible and survivor-less logical extreme? Does it have to be that extreme? Does it even have to be homogeneously extreme across its global extent?