Keep sharing good news without ads.
Dan Kreft the 7 foot apologist explains how to affectively defend your faith!
Record on this computer. We are now recording for for YouTube. Hello YouTube. Hello YouTube and It looks like we are preparing for the Facebook live. I'm getting a status update of preparing Dan craft using do you only in my head?
So I Still getting a notification that it's preparing so Joyce or Robin do you guys have any tips? I.
Think it just takes a little while. But I'm watching the Facebook page I.
Can PayPal you a tip.
Okay. Well, let's do this. Let's go ahead and start because we are recording for YouTube and we don't know how to edit it. So we want to be great and we are so happy to have Dan craft here. I'm Terry cameras out on behalf of the creation fellowship Santee and this is part of our virtually their 2020 series that we've been doing on Thursday evenings since we can't meet in our usual location.
So we've been blessed to have some great speakers and tonight we have Dan craft and craft is the seven-foot apologist. He's a teacher speaker and the author of a three-volume book called Jesus is not the answer to every Sunday school question.
Dan played basketball at Northwestern University where he earned his degree in electrical engineering With which he did precisely nothing. After graduating Dan was invited to rookie camp with the Chicago Bulls which sent him down the road of playing Professional basketball for the next three years both in the United States and in Europe.
His claim to fame is that he not only survived playing head-to-head against Shaquille O 'Neal But also blocked half a dozen of Shaq's dunk attempts which he wrote about The encounter on his personal website, which is the dot craft.
That's kre ft net.
Because the site hasn't been touched in like 20 years so it looks like it so never mind the dust.
Okay, then and then in 1999 God made it clear that he wanted Dan to stop playing ball. So Dan moved to Seattle to take a job with a small Well with a two-year-old online bookstore called Amazon. Where he spent the next 15 years 10 months and 11 days not that he was counting or anything.
All in all Dan has been bossing computers around for nearly a quarter of a century. But his real passion is equipping his brothers and sisters in Christ to give reasonable answers to reasonable questions about their faith.
And it's his hope that someday soon. He'll be able to do that full-time and We are pleased to have him with us here tonight and Facebook is still not quite wanting to cooperate so we can move on and Post our video from YouTube to Facebook later if that works for you.
That works for me, okay.
We get to see it live. So oh.
And let me just tell you guys. Um, so Dan's a presentation is very Interactive he'd like us to interact with him. So here's what we're gonna do if you Want to answer questions use the chat chat away and then I can shout out your answers if they're quick answers.
If you have a question, you can use the raise hand option. So, you know in your little square that has either your your video or your name there's three little right little dots in the right corner and if you click on it, then raise hand should be an option or.
Also, if you go to the participants tab, you can find your name and you can raise your hand there. So if you have a question go ahead and raise your hand and I'll just interrupt him whatever he's doing and and give him your Question, right?
Is that what we talked about? Yeah. Sure. Sounds good to me. And then when he asks questions, you can either post your your response in the comm in the chat or else we'll Call on you if you really have a longer answer.
So, okay, all right, let's go.
All right. So now here is where I get to demonstrate my computer prowess. All right. Where is it? Whoops. I need to go. Make sure the right slide is select first because I'm not liking what it's showing.
Me there. Back up. Okay, I.
Know that Mike is over there making comments about the fact that I'm using a Mac and he's.
Laughing.
All right, so here we go, so tonight's presentation is called tactical social media.
I.
Spent a lot of time probably way too much on social media and as I'm sure a lot of us do and One thing that's really kind of gets to me is how I see well-meaning Christians trying to defend their faith and kind of but frankly falling flat on their faces with it and it's.
You know that the teacher in me wants to take people aside and say look, you know, here's how you do this, right? Let me let me give you a few coaching tips but generally speaking you don't get a chance to do that online so I get a chance to kind of present this to you tonight and show you I want to walk you through a conversation that I had with a gentleman and Show you how I used Greg Cokels tactics what he teaches in his book tactics a game plan for discussing your Christian convictions and How I took that out of off the pages of his book and applied it to real-life situation.
I'm going to kind of guide you through that. So first of all, what I'd like to do is start off with a little a few presuppositions, I want to talk about.
Our.
Fundamental beliefs or the fundamental beliefs that I'm bringing to the table Which I'm not going to attempt to defend because it's beyond the scope of this presentation. But they will be the foundation upon which this entire presentation is built.
The first one is that Jesus Christ is Lord of everything Everything not just Lord of the earth not just Lord of the heavens. But Jesus Christ is supposed to be Lord of everything every aspect of our lives in particular our minds.
So typically when we talk about apologetics, we normally hear first Peter 3 15 quoted and it goes something like this. This is you know. People always say be always be 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, but oftentimes what gets skipped is the first few words of that verse says but sanctify Christ as Lord in Your heart set him aside as Lord in your heart of your thinking process, right in Christ.
You're hit all the all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, right? The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. So unless we start with Christ unless our whole thinking process starts with Christ and is founded on his word We're gonna be like a ship without an anchor.
We're gonna be just pushed along by the winds so the next one and Practice opposition I'm bringing to the table is Christ has spoken to us in his word the Bible. There is no other revealed Word of God.
There is no 67th book of the Bible. God does. God does reveal himself generally in nature. But that is not what we would call scripture. It's not on the same level as as the as the written word as the Bible is.
Number three, the Bible is infallible and inerrant. It does not fight. It does not fail. It does not it does not it has no mistakes in it and it does not err in what it says. Number four his word is. It's perspicuous.
Oh boy. Here it is. And we're already starting, you know first slide and already starting with the 25-cent words a guy I used to work with at Amazon told me that never I should never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice.
His word is perspicuous. That means that when it when the God God is trying to communicate to us He doesn't have any problems communicating to us. His word by and large is very very clear. And if you if you're confused about something that's in one part of the Bible you go to another part of the Bible to get Clarification on that right the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible itself.
So it is self-authenticating as a self-attesting. It is our ultimate authority and Of course the best commentary on the Bible is indeed the Bible. So that's what I'm bringing to the table. These are these when I have an encounter with anybody whether it be online or in person.
These are the presuppositions that I bring to the table now I want to talk about the rules of engagement when you're talking when you're talking with somebody. Who doesn't? Who doesn't agree with you?
I've actually found these these rules these basic rules of engagement that come from Greg Coco's book tactics. I found them very useful even in the in the business setting when I'm having disagreements with other software engineers about making technical decisions.
I Use these some of these rules of engagement with them and I found that it's greatly helped me negotiate difficult otherwise Potentially sensitive or difficult conversations where people you know are apt to get their emotions up.
So the first the first rule is to avoid making statements. One of the coolest things that I learned from this book was that he who could he who asked the questions? Directs the converse that directs the the directs the conversation.
So if you want to get good at making sure the conversation doesn't get off into it off into the weeds. Get good at asking questions leave the person to where you want them to be now We don't want to do this in a manipulative fashion.
But we want to do this to make sure that the point gets made and we communicate effectively and you're not constantly put on The hot seat because when you start making statements, then you have to defend what you're saying.
So a.
Good rule of thumb is to avoid making statements ask questions so questions like what do you mean by that and How did you come to that conclusion? See when you ask somebody these questions you oftentimes force them to think in a way that they have never really thought about it before.
Right, so we all have opinions that we've formed in our minds. But nobody's ever really challenged us on them. And so when we come to when we come to a discussion and somebody you know We just kind of exchanging ideas and nobody ever challenges us on them.
Sometimes we come to you can just walk away from the conversation going. You know what? I I'm not even sure that I that I know what I believe. But so when you ask these questions, you can you can. You've want you wind up learning a lot about what you believe as well as what the other person believes as well.
So I'm gonna have to ask you to brace yourself because the Facebook fight is coming. This conversation does come from Facebook sometimes what I'll do when I'm having kind of a slow day is I'll head over to the answers in Genesis Facebook page because there Is no shortage of people who are on the answers in Genesis page who love to make comments about?
Whatever articles happen to be posted that day. So the one article last late last year I stumbled upon this article. Which is entitled doesn't science disprove the Bible? Says in today's world. We often hear statements like science disproves creation or science proves evolution.
Whenever we hear such claims, the first thing we should ask is what do you mean by science? So I went and I read the article and I said, you know fairly well-written article. It's like okay. I wonder what people are saying about it.
And so as I started going through the comments, I ran across this guy now. First things first. I want to point out that this was a public conversation that was had on a public page. So I've made no attempt to hide anybody's identities if you wanted to right now.
You could go to the answers in Genesis page. You could search for the title of the article and you could see this exact conversation. So I'm not violating anybody's confidence by producing the names and faces here.
So mr Grover says science certainly doesn't disprove the Bible. Although it does overthrow the young-earth creationist interpretation of scripture and. So I thought hmm, please tell me more.
So I.
Clicked on. I clicked on the you know show responses and I dove in there and one Rodney Bell comes up and he says sorry. To say but it doesn't overthrow young-earth creationism. In fact, there is a ton of evidence to support it.
And.
So.
I'm kind of looking at this going. Okay, where where is that evidence, right? There's. What's the mistake this guy's making remember though the ground rules that I laid down right don't make statements and ask questions.
So what does mr. Bell done here? This is where you talk to me. And you have to unmute yourself to do it. Okay. Well, you can see here. There are no question marks and what he's got in his post, right?
Asked any questions. Yes, and Rachel says he made a statement. Yeah, he made a statement, but did he actually say anything? It's just kind of a like yeah, there is so now we've got a yes there is no there is it?
No, uh, yeah, huh? Uh, there's it's it's all heat. No light. There's nothing going. There's nothing that's been added to the conversation here, but somebody apparently loves it because they gave it a heart, right?
So apparently somebody thinks it's a good response. Maybe I'm wrong. So I do have to give him credit for saying evidence supports young earth creationism or supports the Bible. I Circle this in green.
It's a good thing. He he didn't say the thing that what we often do is we say evidence. Proves the Bible or evidence proves young earth creation. So I'm I was very pleased to see that. Mr. Bell said support rather than prove but the rest of the post was just kind of like Not really there's really nothing there right there's no there there.
So then Peter Grover responds with Ronnie Bell. Have you really studied the biblical and scientific evidence against young earth creationist interpretation or do you mostly just read YEC material? So look at mr. Grover.
What's he doing? He's asking questions and he didn't make any statements. So I have to give Score one for Peter Grover, right? So he's got the right idea. He's asking questions. He's not making any statements.
So that's good. But then Rodney Bell replies with yes. I have studied the evidence on both sides and a lot of it is the same evidence interpreted differently. Also, lots of the so-called evidence against YEC has been debunked or refuted but never withdrawn.
Okay again, what's he doing? Making statements not asking questions. So who is in control of this conversation right now? Peter Grover. Peter's in control of the conversation because he's the one asking questions and Rodney Bell is just following his lead.
But what is it? They're focusing on what is the one thing that they seem their conversation is centered on right now? Evidence yeah, they're centered on evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence. They're talking about Evidence, so I'm looking at this and I'm going okay.
Well, you know kind of like Doc Holliday in the movie Tombstone. Mm-hmm. I said, I'm your huckleberry. So I dove in. I said, okay. Mr. Grover Would you be willing to offer an example for us to discuss you see up until now?
Mr. Grover has done nothing but just kind of making broad general sweeping statements, right? There's not a whole lot of information being exchanged here. It's just a matter of here's my opinion and here's my opinion.
We just got a volley of opinions and nothing is gained. So I want to know specifically what it is that he's using as evidence to support his position. So I'll play the game. So he replies with Dan craft the article talks about the fossils and strata being deposited by a global flood.
Now take a little close look at the stratification of the rocks for example. The KT boundary do such orderly strata each with their characteristic fossils really look like they were deposited by a single chaotic global flood.
Look carefully and honestly writing off the evidence as historical science just will not do. Hmm, so I read this post and I started thinking Okay, I don't want to be ignorant, but I have no idea what a KT boundary is.
I mean, I Frankly, you know personally, I mean if you like rocks, that's great. But for me rocks are about as exciting as a box of rocks. I can't get into geology. I don't know a whole lot about it. I'm not really interested in being an expert on it.
So I said, okay. Well, I better go get educated. I'm gonna go see what this KT boundaries all about. So I started reading the Wikipedia article on it. And then I started getting this this this really weird feeling inside that says like no.
It's probably not what you should be talking about. Don't worry about the KT boundary. He follows up. Please don't try to answer with reference to the specific gravity of different creatures. Different ecological zone the migration of animals trying to escape the flood or local catastrophic phenomena such explanations.
Don't come close to explaining the actual strata. So have you noticed something about Peter Grover here? This man can spell and this is a rarity Social media these days so I really appreciated the fact that mr. Grover took the time to spell his words correctly and He's either Canadian or British because he's instead of using Z's he uses s's but I won't hold that against him.
So it was nice to be able to communicate with somebody who who used proper English and could spell properly. But this whole thing it's it just started it was kind of grating on me. I'm like look at all this stuff.
He's talking about specific gravity of different creatures ecological zones migration of animals local catastrophic phenomena. Like I'm sure most people would kind of look at this conversation go. Okay, this guy is like way out.
I'm I can't even I can't even get on the court with this guy. Forget it. Yeah, okay, you you know tap out you win, right? You've got the clearly you're smarter than me, but you know what? We're supposed to always be ready to make a defense.
To to what does it say to everyone everyone who asks you? To give an account for the hope that is in you yet with gentleness and reverence and remember who wrote this. That's Peter. Remember what Peters occupation was.
Dude was a fisherman. He wasn't the Phi Beta Kappa. Right. So this guy is a fisherman and he's telling us to always be ready to have a defense. I don't think Peter was studying geology or Moon beams or anything else.
He knew Jesus. So that should be our attitude we should know the Bible so well that we don't have to we don't have to worry about All this stuff, but you know what even more importantly I'm looking at all this and he's talking about evidence evidence evidence evidence KT boundaries Specific gravities and all this stuff and I'm look at this going.
Well, what am I supposed to do with this? What are most people gonna do with this? They're just gonna shrug their shoulders and look at it and go. I Don't know. I don't know what to do with this. But you know what?
It's a red herring. It's a complete red herring. What he's doing is he's dragging a red smell a smoked smelly fish across my path trying to drag me away into the land of evidences and Get me away from talking about what's most important.
So don't take the bait. You don't have to be an expert in geology. You just got to know the word. So all this stuff about evidences. It's all the red herring. It's a distraction. You know why because evidence is not proof.
Evidence doesn't prove anything. Evidence isn't just in formation and it must be interpreted. Right. So the people in answers in Genesis say this all the time, right? They say, you know when you when you find, you know The secular geologist and a biblical geologist come to a rock and they look at it and one says oh well.
You know 6 ,000 years and the secularist looks at it and goes. Oh 4 .6 billion years, right? So rocks don't come with little tags on them that has like, you know A best buy before date kind of thing on it or an expiration date on it.
It doesn't they don't they don't come with that so we each bring our fundamental set of beliefs our presuppositions to the evidence and the evidence must be Interpreted. This is why we all have the same rocks.
We all have the same star beams. We all have the same, you know, we have the same rocks and rills all over the hills. We all have the same information, but it has to be interpreted and this is really it's a fundamental issue.
Is that of worldview? So Realizing this I went back to mr. Grover and I said I Wonder then what you do with Genesis 7 through 9. What do you see scripture describing in those chapters? Okay pop quiz time what am I doing?
I'm asking questions have I made any statements. I Have made no statements. So I have nothing to defend. Do I I'm just at I'm in fact-finding mode right now I just want to find out where this guy, you know, what's his story, you know, he appears to be somewhat You know biblically literate.
I'm just not sure. I don't want to make any assumptions about him. So I ask questions right now I'm in fact-finding mode. And where do I take him? I take him to the Bible, right? Let's get away from the evidences which all rely on previous presuppositions to interpret them.
And where do we go? We go straight to scripture take him to the word. That's where you need to focus he replies with I understand Genesis 9 through 11 originally I had typed it as 9 through 11 I had to go back through and edit it to be a vivid description of a worldwide flood terms like local and global or Anachronistic seeing things from our perspective.
I like the way Peter describes the creation and subsequent destruction of the earth. But only says the flood destroyed the world of that time. That's the way I see it. Okay, so I'm thinking about this.
I'm thinking okay. So having gone around this bush a number of times before with other people I recognize the influence of Hugh Ross right, he believes and what do they call it? They call it a a Global.
I always get mixed up with their terminology they use they use words in ways you wouldn't expect. So universal means it flooded everywhere where people were but it wasn't all over the planet or something like that.
So basically he believes in a localized flood essentially. Well, at least that's the impression that I'm getting from this.
Local flood and theistic evolution. Yes local flood. Thank you.
So then I said Peter Grover Thanks for your response Peter if you could explain what you mean by Worldwide and how you came to that definition as it applies to the Genesis flood that would be very helpful.
So again, what am I doing? I'm not assuming that I know what he means. I ask questions. What do you mean by that? And how do you come to that conclusion? Straight out of great of Greg's book. Okay. What do you mean by that?
What do you mean by worldwide? He says I define it as Meaning the whole world as understood by the author. How do you know this right. Well How do you come to that conclusion? Not dissimilar to the way Luke wrote of the whole world being taxed or Paul spoke of the gospel bearing fruit in the whole world.
So, um, thank you, I'm trying to be nice, you know, my mom taught me that you know to be nice. And so here I am doing my best. Thank you to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Is it your view that The Genesis flood see I'm trying to get him to come to the point He's being kind of dodgy with his answers.
So I'm trying to help him along a little bit. So I asked him look I try to Try to make it make a stab at the Interpretation of what he's saying and then I help him along with the question. Is it your view that the Genesis flood only covered the land of the planet that was occupied by mankind or something else.
I Think you may have missed the second question though, which was how did you come to that definition? In other words, what do you see in the text? That would lead you to your definition of worldwide and I hear you I want to pause here and point something out to you.
This is one of my frustrations with talking on with communicating online. If you if you like me and you like to write and you like to give very well thought-out, you know voluminous answers chances are.
Your answers aren't going to be read completely.
If they are read completely They're not going to be processed and addressed in a point-by-point manner as I would like to have them done. I figure you know, if I'm gonna spend the time to write it I would like you to spend the time to read it.
All right, but a lot of people don't do that. So sometimes things get dropped so that's why I bring up this this very important second question I said, you know, how did you come to that definition? I want to find out Where he why he thinks the way he does right ultimately this is about this.
You know, I'm gonna let the cat out of the bag here. Ultimately. This is an authority issue. So where am I trying to take him? So here I am. I haven't made any statements other than thank you and Where am I trying to take him?
Back to the text back to the Bible. That's where I want to spend my time. Okay, so he says to be honest I have no idea about the actual extent of the flood. But I assume it must have swept away the corrupt civilization of that time.
As to how I arrive at that definition I suppose it comes from a whole array of reasons both biblical and scientific but I always make it my aim to ask what the original author understood by what he wrote.
A Complicating factor is the principle of accommodation whereby God reveals his word in terms understandable to the original readers. I think it is invariably a mistake to read modern scientific concepts into the text that would have been unknown to the original Author so I want to point this out.
I always make it my aim to ask what the original author understood by what he wrote. And then he brings up this principle of accommodation. So now I'm going to chatter my inner Jason Lyle. And I'm going to read you a brief section from his book Understanding Genesis.
This is a fantastically thick book, but it is really really good. It's it's a it's a lot of reading but it's it's in typical Jason Lyle style. It is very very well written. It's a very easy read and very very valuable resource.
Here's what he says. Accommodation is the act of simplifying a complex principle for the purpose of explaining that principle to someone else. This is a biblical principle. The accommodation hermeneutic however is something quite different the accommodation as Interpreter assumes that anything in Scripture that is contrary to modern secular opinions is merely an accommodation to the understanding of the time.
Advocates of this position assert that God used the accepted though false views of the day. Especially an ancient Near East cosmology to teach true principles such as monotheism. The view was proposed by 18th century rationalist Johan Semmler.
It seems to me that the accommodation hermeneutic can be summarized as God uses lies to teach the truth. So now you know what accommodation is. So if nothing else you've learned a big word tonight. Alright, so then I say I commend you for your pursuit and trying to figure out what the original author meant.
That's a good sign that you're on the right track to properly understanding Scripture. See what I'm doing here. I'm trying to be a nice guy. I'm trying. I'm trying to build a bridge with somebody I disagree with.
I know I'm pretty sure at this point. Where he's coming from and I know where he's going, but I don't want to lose the person, right? I think it's all too easy and especially in these online discussions that we have with people.
We we get so okay former professional athlete here, right? I'm extremely competitive. So my natural fleshly inclination is to win the debate at all costs. I want to win. I want to win. But the problem is if you win the argument you may you may lose the person and which is more important, right?
Arguments don't make their way into heaven people do. I don't want to lose the people. So this is something that I constantly battle with myself. And I constantly have to check myself and say, okay. Am I trying to win the argument or am I trying to win the person?
So here I'm making a very concerted effort to try to win the person. The tide kind of turns at the end of our conversation because you know, we kind of had to. Well, I don't want to give it away because yeah.
But anyway, I said but I must confess to being a bit confused. I'm blonde as well as an ex-athlete. So it happens more frequently than I'd care to admit. You said that your goal is to understand what the biblical author understood and meant by his writing and that your conclusions about the flood are Drawn at least in part for biblical reasons yet.
You also say that you have no idea about the actual extent of the flood. What is it about Genesis 7 through 9 that that you find unclear or that you think evidences accommodation. Okay, so notice what I've done here.
I've made a few statements, but what did I end with. I Ended with a question right because I don't want this to be like I need anything, right? I'm still kind of in fact-finding mode. So and where am I trying to take him?
Back to the text take him back to the Bible and see where they're going wrong. Okay. We want to take people back to the text always always always. So he says all the high mountains and every living thing suggest a somewhat limited perspective.
I Find that curious every and all limited.
Okay.
I suppose the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens would have to be understood in the context of ancient Near East cosmology. Accommodation again, right? This is like straight out of Jason Lyle's definition or his explanation of it.
I believe the flood was a real historical event. But it wasn't described with the strictly scientific accuracy and terminology that we might have liked.
Hmm.
Anybody find anything curious about this. Any comments?
Nobody has chatted anything yet. Okay. Oh Erica says. Opinions.
Yeah opinions, right. So like what is what is this based on? He's just kind of like yeah. You know, it's to me. It seems like and I feel this and I believe this and like, okay. But we're trying to get to the reasons why you believe right if I've been studying a lot about presuppositional apologetics lately.
Thank you. Thanks in part to Mike Riddle for kicking me kindly in the posterior and get me going down that road. But then you know one thing you learn about you know knowledge is true justified belief.
So you can if you believe something, but you don't have justification for it. You really don't know it. Right. So you just have a belief a feeling. Why do you have a lucky? Why do you have a sawed-off rodents foot in your pocket?
Well, because I know that if I take it out and I rub it then I'll have good luck. Well, how do you know that? Well, I just I feel it right. Well, so there's no knowledge there. Yeah, sure.
I'm still flying down the freeway. But that last comment that he made I'm not watching obviously. But I'm listening and it almost sounds like you've peaked his interest. I don't know. Maybe I'm reading or hearing that wrong.
Okay muting again.
Yeah, so it's he's staying there with me. He hasn't he hasn't shown any signs of frustration, you know, cuz I'm hoping it's because you know, I'm trying to be a nice guy. And in the interest of full disclosure, I've had other encounters with this guy since then just recently a couple weeks ago.
But the conversation didn't didn't end up it wasn't quite as succinct as this one. So I chose not to use it. All right. So I Said okay, you said all the high mountains and every living thing suggest a somewhat limited perspective.
But is that really true? When these phrases are considered in the context of the immediate words around them and in the context of the entire account. So notice what I'm doing. I Restated what he said and then I asked him a question.
It would've been very easy for me to say no. Oh the context said This and your bonehead, right? Don't want to do that because you might win the argument, but you will definitely lose the person. So what am I doing?
I'm asking him a question getting him to think about it and say is that really true? I found that's a Far better way to disagree with somebody than to say, uh-uh. Right. So my post continues. Oh. Context context right context is key.
So where am I taking him? Back to scripture right stick keep your nose in the book because God knows it all and he reveals it to us. All right, so it goes on all the high mountains appears in verse 19.
But you appear to have stopped reading in the middle of the verse. Here it is in its entirety. The water prevailed more and more upon the earth so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
Note carefully that the text says everywhere under the heavens. It does not say all the world as in the known world. Which you mentioned from the Gospel of Luke also worth noting. Luke was written in a different language than Genesis and to a different culture.
So it's not a fair comparison in the first place. There are three definitions of heaven that the scripture uses the atmosphere outer space and God's throne room. And I accidentally I talked about this in two of my three books.
And the the zoom bar is blocking part of my my view here. So I'll have to read it from the paper. Regardless of the precise definition chosen each of these completely encompasses the earth. There's nowhere that we can go on the face of this planet where we will not be under the heavens.
So you notice here I'm starting to make statements, but where are my statements coming from? Are they my opinions? No, they're straight from the word. Let God make the statements. We should ask the questions.
Okay. So then I continue and I say you'll need to account for the very next verse which says the water prevailed 15 cubits higher. And the mountains were covered. Chapter 7 verse 20. This means that however high the highest mountain was under the heavens that mountain was covered to a depth of approximately 22 feet.
Since water seeks its own level the height of the mountain is irrelevant. More importantly one would have to invoke a miraculous intervention of God to defy the laws of fluid dynamics to explain how water.
Or would run up the side of the highest mountain wall up 22 feet over the peak and not run down the other side. I'm sure you've all seen the pictures that answers in Genesis has of you know. There's a big mountain there with the arch floating in there and there's the waters all walled up.
Pretty cool photo. Pretty cool image. If this were the extent of the flood then we'd also have to answer the question. Why wouldn't the animals and humans of the day just escape to the other side of the highest mountain?
Right.
Similarly the phrase every living thing also has a context again taken him back to the text. I Will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made. Thus he blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land from man to animals to creeping things and the birds of the sky and they were blotted out from the earth and only Noah was left together with those that were with him in the Ark, and I've never again.
Will I destroy every living thing as I have done. So I told you I like to write. There are also three references to every living creation in chapter 9 and I chose not to quote those. That I'll invite you to look up for yourself.
This is very clear unambiguous language that speaks of a totality of air-breathing creatures that affected every single creature. Save those on the ark quote all flesh that moved on the earth perished.
Birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth and all mankind of all that was on the dry land. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the Spirit of life died. Have you noticed how many times Moses writes all there is no room for exclusions or exceptions as.
For the springs of the deep. I see no reason to invoke cosmology here ancient near east or otherwise. Cosmology is the study of the universe. But this is a geological phenomenon that we see in places like Yellowstone National Park and in deep-sea vents on the ocean floor.
The fundamental axiom of hermeneutics now another big word. Sorry hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation. Particularly of the biblical interpretation. It's the rules and the and the guidelines that we follow to make sure that we're interpreting the scriptures correctly and Jason Lyle's book understanding Genesis is what.
This this book is all about hermeneutics. I highly recommend it when the plain sense of the text makes sense. Seek no other sense. Stated another way. We always interpret the cloudy and light of the clear so you don't take a verse that could mean several things and then take Arbitrarily pick a definition and then go over here to a very specific verse and then say well it must mean the same thing.
No, you take the clear verse such as Exodus 20 11, right? What God talks about in six days he created everything and on the seventh day he rested and then you go back to Genesis 1 as if that wasn't clear enough by itself and you say well look Exodus clearly is not poetry.
It's not. It's not a metaphor. It's clearly historical narrative and it's using the word in the same way over here. Right, so we have the clear. Interpreting the cloudy. Not that I think Genesis 1 is cloudy, but some people think so.
So I'm still left wondering why you would seek some other sense other than the plain sense of the Genesis flood to account. The Genesis flood account that I've briefly illustrated above briefly. Yes for me.
That was brief. Okay, so mr. Grover replies. I Fully accept that the author of Genesis regarded the flood is universal from his from his perspective. Although I don't rule out the possibility of hyperbolic language using exaggeration.
I Really don't think that the author had in mind Yellowstone or deep sea vents when he wrote about the springs of the deep. I judged that seeing springs produced water apparently out of the earth. He deduced that there must be an underground reservoir of water supplying the springs.
I Tend to read the scripture rather literally and when we read of windows in the firmament I think the author meant just that. Why do young earth creationists avoid the plain sense so often. Why try to reinterpret words like light subdue River Euphrates pitch, etc to mean something other than their plain sense.
Okay. Now I want to open the floodgates here. You tell me what you see in this comment ignorance. Let's let's be gracious tell me specifically what you see. I want you to pick out specific things that are just They're off.
You can unmute yourself to shout out a comment or if you feel more comfortable, you can put it in the chat.
Yeah, I don't have a chat window in front of me. I can't see it at all. So you'll have to relay that I can do that.
I would take it that he just wants to be on the opposite side of whatever the person that he's talking to is and. That's no-win situation for me because I don't play that game.
Perhaps. And Erica says did he just try to flip your tactic back at you?
Yeah. There's a little bit of that. He's asking questions. I mean, he's I mean, he's he's clearly older than me. This is this is somebody who's many years my senior.
So he's been around the Sun a few more times than I have and so and Ted says he attempts to divert discussion to where?
He's comfortable. Yes, he does. Where. What are you seeing that? What are you seeing in this comment regarding his approach to Scripture? What is he revealing to us here?
Just have a very good understanding. He just takes it. He takes what he thinks he interprets it through his.
Yeah, shouldn't what he's reading. Yeah, there's if you study presuppositional apologetics At any length and I'm sure Caden might may recognize the the word that I'm looking at here judge Right. He says I judge that like well, hold on.
Wait a minute. I I've I've seen the somewhere before Genesis chapter 3 Eve judged Right. This is what we call Autonomous human reasoning right Caden. Right, this is autonomous human reasoning. We've divorced ourselves from the Word of God and we use our reasoning powers to think about this for a minute, right?
This is this is an important point.
Eve.
Was sinless. At the point where she was tempted and up until the point where she bit where she took a part of the fruit. She was sinless. So, how well did her autonomous human reasoning work for her while she was sinless.
Did it work well for her? No, look at us all. We're all wearing clothes. That should give you an indication that it did not go well for her. All right, we all that we all get sick. We all get old. We all die.
We all have to wear clothes in the meantime, right? And thank you everybody for wearing clothes on the zoom. I do appreciate that very much. But think about this right. Eve was sinless and She practiced this autonomous human reasoning reasoning being becoming a law unto herself reasoning apart from the Word of God.
That to you know a conclusion. She's like well, you know, it looks good and it's gonna make me wise. And I know God wants me to be smart because I'm supposed to love him with my whole mind. So I'm gonna go ahead and do this even though he told me not to.
So if autonomous human reasoning Didn't work well for someone who was sinless. What do you suppose is going to be the the result of us who are? Thousands of years removed with all those years of sin. To you know piled up on us, right?
So we have thousands of years of the simple nature piled upon us in the cumulative effects of sin over over generations and generations. How well do you think we're gonna be able to reason autonomously away from the Word of God.
Do you think it's gonna go well for us? See, this is why Peter tells us sanctify Christ as Lord he needs to be the the the Proverbs 1 7 says. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, right? That's the foundation of wisdom.
When you when you get off that foundation you are in shaky shaky shaky ground. So he says I judged that seeing springs produce water apparently out of the earth. He deduced that there must be an underground reservoir of water.
This is exactly what Eve did. She judged and she deduced and she got it very very wrong. So I find this comment incredibly Incredibly curious. He says I tend to read scripture rather literally and when we read of windows in the firmament I think the author meant just that.
Wait a minute. Have we not read Genesis chapter 1 on the first day this happened on the second day this happened. There was evening in the morning, right? There's the evening in the morning. There's the day there's all this.
Isn't that a literal reading of the text? So you see the inconsistent hermeneutic here. So what seems to be happening here is that when the when mr Grover is bringing to the text some ideas that he has namely scientific Scientific theories and whatnot.
He's taking the scientific knowledge and he's applying it to the text and he's reforming the text to make it agree with.
His scientific understanding and and that's what Ted is saying to in the chat. He says he's looking for reinforcement of his beliefs not looking to learn. Amen. Amen.
So then look at the second the second section. I underlined why do young earth creationist avoid the plain sense so often. Oh, hi. Really pot calling the kettle black. Now, I didn't respond that way, but this is the thought process I'm going through.
I'm like, I just can't believe this guy wrote this to me, right and he goes on and he says Why try to interpret words like light subdue River Euphrates pitch etc to mean something other than their plain sense.
I'm like, I looked back through the conversation. I never once used the word light. I never used the word subdue. I never used the phrase River Euphrates. I never used the word pitch. So, you know what we have here.
We not only have a red herring Right, but we also have a straw man argument so what he's doing is he's Misrepresenting my argument and then so he sets up a straw man and then he goes when he punches it and he says aha I win.
Well, no because you're you punched a straw man. You didn't even go after what I believe.
Fortunately, I didn't see this post. When we I was originally getting ready to craft when I went like crafted my next response I didn't see this because it kind of came through in rapid succession and for some reason I missed it.
Otherwise, I would have I would have jumped on this like a kid on a trampoline at Christmastime like a brand new trampoline, right? I would have been fun. Boing. Boing. Boing. Boing. Boing. We're gonna hammer this one home, right?
I guess there's if this is a target rich environment right here. Here's the post that I did see his follow-up. He says giving up young earth creationist presuppositions was one of the most liberating experiences I have had.
For the first time I felt I could hear what God was actually saying without constantly trying to force the scripture to conform to my modern Scientific understanding see here. He has just confirmed all of my suspicions all along.
I knew where he was going and he just laid it out for me on a silver platter. For the first time I could accept what the rocks were saying through general revelation and not try to force them. Kicking and screaming into conformity to flood geology.
I Can recommend the experience? What do you think people? What would you do if you got this answer? You probably saying I wouldn't have been in this conversation in the first place, Dan.
But I was saying Dan or I was also thinking run run away.
I wouldn't have gone there. I wouldn't have wasted my time. See, my mom always told me that I like to argue and I say no, I don't. She says yes you do. No, I don't. He said yes you do. I said no I don't.
So I'm just I'm the reason why pet stores have those little signs on the aquariums. Or is it aquaria? Let's say please do not thump on the glass. I'm I'm the reason why those signs exist, right? So I like to mess with people a little bit.
It's great Sunday school teacher and I enjoy Rigorous debate. I enjoy discussion, right? So what would you do? Somebody please tell me what you would do if you found yourself with somebody saying this after all that you've read.
What approach would you take?
Can you repeat that for Robin. Because she got kicked off and she just came back on. Okay.
I want to know is if you were in this conversation with it with mr. With mr. Grover How would you respond to this. You want me to. You want me to read what he wrote again? Yeah, read what he wrote because she that giving up young earth creationist presuppositions was one of the most liberating experiences I have had.
For the first time I felt I could hear what God was actually saying without constantly trying to force the scripture to conform to my modern scientific understanding. For the first time I could accept what the rocks were saying through general revelation and not try to force them kicking and screaming into Conformity to flood geology flood geology.
I can recommend the experience. What would you do?
Well while she's thinking Caden points out that he's. He's using emotionalism.
How so explain. Caden unmute yourself. Speak to me. Well, he's been wait okay, so he's been saying like I I could hear what God was really actually saying without constantly trying to force the scripture and.
Can see that to how he says the experience it's it's liberating and his experience. Mm-hmm.
Anybody else. Are we all afraid of the youtubes? Is that why you're not answering? I.
Still think he likes to take his side in an argue and I don't like the debate. Peace and not.
Cause trouble. Yeah, it definitely takes the plant to have a personality for this and some people don't write. So don't feel bad. If you if you if you look at this whole conversation, you're going more power to you.
I get that but you're always gonna wind up. You're gonna wind up having conversations with people. You know, it's you know in real life or on in the online's. Where they're not going to disagree with you.
And so I think it's really we really need to be able to navigate these kind of conversations and just have some basic tools. To get people to think and to be able to defend what you believe, right?
Erica has an answer in chat and then Jack you can go ahead and show yours after Erica says I think of people like Charles Templeton who went from Crusader with Billy Graham to atheists with a sense of relief that he came to that conclusion.
He never really believed to begin with amen. Amen. That's a great example.
Jackie.
Mean, I Kind of feel like at the end of the day He doesn't want to be he doesn't want it. He's not open to having his mind changed. He's cited. This is I don't know it. It makes me kind of think about people that are living in sin and They they said well the way I read the Bible God loves me and it's okay.
I mean.
Right. Yeah, I can definitely see some of that. So one thing you bring up an interesting point where you talk about, you know. It's he doesn't want to have his mind changed. So let me let me make this really easy for you.
It's not our job to convince convict or to convert anybody. Right. The Bible doesn't say go out and convince convict and convert people. Our job see that's the Holy Spirit's job. Our job is just to simply go out and proclaim the truth in love with gentleness and respect.
Right first first Peter 315 where to be we have to be able to play defense always be ready to give it. To give an answer right to be able to answer to this then you got Jude 3 which says contend earnestly for the faith.
Right, that's like I see that as playing, you know first Peter 315 you got to play defense. But Jude 3 you also have to be able to make a positive case for your faith. You have to be able to play offense as well.
But ultimately ultimately Salvation and a changing of the mind can only be wrought by the Holy Spirit. It is not our job. We are incapable of doing this. So don't ever think that it's up to you to change somebody else's mind.
All your job is is to present the truth. You see I had a hard time learning this. Because I'm a perfectionist. I'm a firstborn son of a military man who is a son of a military man, right? Mike you can relate to this.
And so when I when I when I get into these situations, I mean, I just want to. I Feel like I need to not only do I need to win. But this person needs to accept Christ and I need to can be converting people and when that doesn't happen I used to get really frustrated and beating myself up and saying oh my goodness I'm a total failure.
The Lord is, you know frowning upon me because I haven't converted anybody. It's not our job. So take that burden off of your shoulders put it on Christ put it on the Holy Spirit and say okay Lord I am here to be a tool in your hand.
I May be one tool of many in your toolbox that you use to ultimately win this to convert to change this person's mind. But I shouldn't think it's ever my responsibility. It's my responsibility to tell the truth, but not to convince, convict, or convert.
Okay enough preaching. Let's get back to this.
We do still we do have a couple more answers in the chat. Would you like to hear them? Yes, please. Okay, Caden says that he's also leaning away from inerrancy. It seems like he understands why he sees, you know, young earth creationist presuppositions.
But he does not want to believe in the actuality of it being correct. It's a lot of I me and going for man's modern philosophy. Yeah.
Okay, what else was there. You said there was more.
Yeah, Leslie says he needs to apply his modern scientific understanding to the rest of the Bible if he wants to be consistent.
Hmm. Oh, how about modern scientific understanding? Do axe heads float? Do waters part? Do dead men rise from the grave? Right. So if you want to be consistent You need to take your modern scientific understanding and apply it to the totality of Scripture.
Not just the parts that you think are important. Oh, well, I of course I believe the resurrection because Paul tells us in 1st Corinthians 15 that if you know Christ is not raised and we are still dead in our sins and our faith is futile.
Of course. I believe that that's essential. But then we use a completely different hermeneutic. We use a completely different approach to Scripture when it comes to things like how long was the the creation week?
Was it six days or was it millions of years? Right, so we need to be consistent. Was there another comment? Oh.
One comment I would have is why does he feel that there's a need to conform? his beliefs to modern scientific understanding rather than His scientific understanding to what Scripture has to say. Very good, sir.
Very good observations.
Matter of fact, I'd make that very point in my presentation on the like what I call the problems with distant starlight I talk a lot about the how to deal with Bibles apparent Bible science conflicts.
And that's precisely right like science has been science is never definitive. You keep in mind that science is never deals with absolutes. It deals with probabilities because it's inductive in by nature, right?
We take a few small data points and we try to extrapolate a larger curve from it. So we take some observations and we try to generate a principle from it. That's called induction and you can always be wrong and you're only ever one discovery away from having your favorite scientific theory invalidated.
And it happens all the time like geocentricity right the four humors. You know blood phlegm black bile and yellow bile and and bloodletting that whole practice, right? There are a number of scientific, you know things that we used to know for certain.
But we look at now and we go. Oh my goodness. I can't believe we ever thought that that was so ridiculous, right? So but when we get dogmatic about what we what we know from science and then we try to take that to the Bible.
It's foolishness. It's utter foolishness because God knows it all he knows what he did at creation. He knows, you know, his word is immutable. But yet our scientific understanding is changing on a daily basis.
Anything else? Well, there was one more comment about Going back to what you said about how we need to let the Holy Spirit. It's his job to convict. It's not our job to convert people. And so Rachel just pointed out.
She's reading in 1st Corinthians about planting watering and God giving the increase and also in those chapters about worldly wisdom.
Yeah, yeah.
Colossians. Colossians 2 is good for that too, right? Don't be deceived by you know. Worldly wisdom and all that 2nd Timothy 6. There's a you know talking about science falsely so-called. All right. So here's what I want to draw your attention to right here.
Force the scripture to conform to my modern scientific understanding. You see this. When I saw this I was kind of looking at it like you've got to be kidding me.
This.
It couldn't get any easier like just wrap put a wrap it up put on a bow put on a silver platter and hand it. To me this ladies and gentlemen is an authority issue. Who is your ultimate authority is your ultimate authority.
Authority what the guys with the white lab coats and the pocket protectors say or is it with the omnipotent omniscient? Holy God of the universe our Creator has to say which is it going to be now at this point?
You're gonna notice a Change in my tone with him at this point. I wanted to bring the conversation to a close because we had been kind of going on and on and on a little bit and I was I was really disappointed that his of with his handling of Scripture.
I have kind of a I have a little bit of a short fuse when it comes to people who want to lie About what the scripture says and they use faulty hermeneutics and try to twist scripture because it's not just necessarily about me.
And mr. Grover going back and forth. We're in a public forum and there are people looking at this there are other people who are just casually observing and they're seeing what's going on and it's just like It's kind of like, you know, it's like he's we're on the playground and he just said yo mama.
That's that's kind of what goes on in my in my sixth grade part of my brain, right? I'm just like, okay. He just said yo mama and now like it's like it's like a hockey game, right? You come look at each other and the glove the gloves come off.
So I get I get considerably more firm with him from here on out and this is uh. This is going to be a little bit of a long one. But I wanted to make sure not no points get missed. I said sir therein lies the problem that you feel that it is scripture that must conform to the scientific whims of a day rather than Submitting our thoughts to what scripture says.
I have just laid out for you a plain and simple Exegesis from the scripture regarding two phrases you said that you had a problem understanding. But you have chosen to completely ignore everything that I have explained to you and offered a woman at the well defense.
Remember that when Jesus was talking to the woman at the well, he's like, hey, you'll get your husband. She's like, you know, I don't I don't have a husband. He's like you're right. You don't have a husband matter of fact, you've had five husbands and the one you look you're shacking up with now.
He's not your husband. And what does she do? How look a squirrel right? She's like sir. I see that you're a Jew you say that we should worship over here, right? She tries to turn it all into a religious discussion, right?
Get the get the get the heat off of me talk about something else a total dodge and that's exactly what mr Grover has done and at this point in our conversation, I Said you commit the fallacy of reification when you speak of rocks speak speaking kicking and screaming.
Reification by the way is just the attributing life life human like qualities to inanimate objects. You'll learn a lot about that in Jason Lyle's book discerning truth. If any of you buy these books you need to tell him that I'm selling his books for him.
I want to I want to commission anyway. Likewise you also commit a category error when you play special and general revelation on the same Authoritative footing in other words the Bible and nature, you know, it's it's Hugh Ross's 67th book of the Bible, right?
Scripture is propositional truth directly communicated in human language inspired by the Holy Spirit and is thus infallible inerrant and Profitable for teaching reproof correction and training and righteousness so you can quote scripture without quoting verses, right?
And without giving references general revelation on the other hand must be Interpreted in a much different way than human language is because it is not propositional. In other words, it doesn't make statements you have to infer.
From it nature does not make statements. Rocks don't talk and rocks don't have meaning. Meaning must be inferred. Of course, there's always that problem that Jesus said that the heavens and the earth will pass away.
But his word will never pass away and that nature itself is cursed. God's Word is not now if you've read any of Jason Lyle's book, you'll probably recognize that I once again Channeled my inner my inner Jason Lyle and a good portion of what I typed here is actually from one of his books I just couldn't remember Which one it was or where it was.
I tried to find it for the purposes of this presentation. But I couldn't find it. But this is essentially a very An almost word-for-word quote of some of the things that Jason Lyle was fond of saying.
So there you go. Finally, it's eerie how similar your response is to countless atheists that I've talked to over the years nearly every single Atheist I have ever talked to grew up in the church true story and Every single one of those gave me the same line how liberating it was For them to shake off the fetters of the authority of God's Word in their lives so they could pursue their own Interests.
Somebody had mentioned Charles Templeton, right? And again, this is exactly what Eve did in the Garden of Eden, isn't it? She's like, okay. We got God's Word over here. No, I'm gonna go off and do this because that fruit looks good and I want to be wise.
So finally I say I do not envy you sir when at last you must stand before Christ Jesus and account for Subjugating his word to the fallible opinions and impressions of men. We cannot rightfully call him Lord if his word is not the ultimate authority in our lives to govern our faith and practice.
That was the end of the conversation as you can see there four days later. I came back and there was still no response. So it pained me to have to write that because I don't know if this man knows Christ or not he.
My subsequent conversations with him lead me to believe that He he is at least a nominal Christian. I have I I don't know the heart right all I can I. We're called to be fruit inspectors not heart inspectors, but the fruit I'm seeing is how he treats the Bible.
Makes me question some things but ultimately I can't make any judgments on that. All I can do is hold him to what Scripture says and that's what I've tried to do throughout this this whole conversation.
Four days later no response from him. So my point was made right? I Really? It really grieves me to think about mr Grover or any another one of a number of different people any anybody who has to stand before God one day and Possibly hear those words Depart from me.
I never knew you. Right, this is this is not what we want for people and you know, I did everything except for you know If I would have done this conversation all over again, I would have added one word repent.
Because that's really what's needed here. He's Mishandling scripture. He is not rightly dividing the word of truth and he's no doubt leading others astray. Given his age and the fact that he's a grandfather and everything, right?
It it really it really disturbs me. So I want to help you. You know My passion is to be able to equip my brothers and sisters in Christ to be able to defend your faith. You don't even you don't have to get into big long conversations like this but to be able to feel confident enough to know and I just ask questions and Know the word you remember that the Apostles by and large the original 12 Apostles were fishermen.
They were uneducated guys and the book of Acts tells us it's like wait a minute the Pharisees and the Sadducees are looking at them and like Well, we they took note of them that they were unlearned men.
But they recognized that they had been with Jesus when people look at you. Do they see an unlearned person? That's fine. But do they know they recognize that you've been with Christ, that's the important thing.
So you have to know his word. Right. We're all called to be you might you might not have the you might not have the title of apologist. But we are all called to be apologists because first Peter 315 says hey y 'all Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts always be ready to have a defense.
So that's every single one of you including me. So now what? To that end to helping you become better apologists in your own spheres of influence. I want to recommend some books for you so if you have smartphones and you've got a cue just take a picture of these because I'll have a QR code on Next to each book and you can go to Amazon and you can you can buy the books and Full disclosure.
This is a link to my my associates account, too. So I'll get like I'll get a little kickback if you wind up buying a book this book right here Jay Lucas has asked them why Is perhaps it's right up there with Jake with Greg Coco's book tactics so tactics really changed my my my entire my to turn my world upside down because Before I read this book I was afraid of talking to atheists and Jehovah's Witnesses because I just didn't know how to deal with it, right?
I didn't know the whole the whole the whole thing about you know Asking questions and and just probing and not making statements. I would make statements all the time and then I would just get you know, I would get slapped around.
So this book helps you navigate difficult conversations or disagreements with people. Jay Lucas's book is a Fantastic introduction to presuppositional apologetics like doing everything for the glory of God basing your entire argument on the authority of Scripture and not at all being embarrassed about it and do not try to use evidences to Prove the Bible because evidences don't prove anything.
So highly recommend Jay Lucas's book ask them why I've already mentioned Jason Lyle's book discerning truth. This is the book that it's a it's a pretty thin book. It's really easy read and he goes through a ton of logical fallacies in here.
So this is a pretty good introduction to logical fallacies so if you're like some of these things I've talked about like You know begging the question and straw man argument and etc, etc. Jason Lyle this and the ultimate proof of creation are Two really really good books for giving you an introduction to logic.
Really really good for that logical fallacies. The next book is of course great Coco's book tactics, which I of course, I highly recommend now if you have kids. Or you are you have kids in your sphere of influence?
There are two books. I would like to recommend you to them because you know, unless you're a home School parent your kids are not getting taught logic. Right. Nobody teaches logic anymore in the school.
It's not even not even in most private schools. They won't teach you logic. I had to learn all this stuff about logical fallacies and stuff as a 30 year old or a 35 year old. I had to learn this late in life.
So I went through what you know a good portion of my life just being kind of dumb and not knowing how to reason well. So if you have children, I recommend to two books the first. Oh, sorry. This is Jason Lyle's book understanding Genesis.
This is the book on hermeneutics. And in this book, he does a fantastic job of going through about. I think it's six chapters of three of Hugh Ross's books and he goes through there and he just kind of he picks apart and he shows the bad hermeneutics that Hugh Ross uses when he approaches the scriptures and why his Arguments are so they're just not grow.
They're not even grounded in scripture. They have the appearance of being grounded in scripture, but they're utterly destitute in terms of their scriptural content. So understanding Genesis fantastic book.
Okay. Now the kids. The thinking toolbox 35 lessons that will build your reasoning skills teaching kids how to think critically. This is a great little book and then following up right on the heels of that one.
You get the fallacy detective, which is a great resource for teaching kids all about logical fallacies. Be careful you teach your kids this stuff. They might use it on you. So you might want to make sure that you're reading along with them because take it from me.
I'm a father of four and my firstborn is a is a rocket surgeon. He's he's incredibly bright and I've had more than my share of debates with. We had to kind of reinstate the kind of the hierarchy in the house, right because they get a little too big for their britches.
Anyway, so that's that's my presentation for the evening. I thank you so much for your participation and If you if you if you like what I have here, I've got my my three books. You know, there's the cover of my book is right there.
The first book is is foundations. The second one is who is God? It's a primer on theology and then we got practical apologetics is where the rubber meets the road. And you can read all about that on my website, which is linked there with the QR code.
I don't know. Terry if you want to do we do questions now. We have a couple of questions.
So one of our questions comes from Erica who asks. If she found herself in a debate with somebody who's trying to debate evidence. And she doesn't know the answer because it's over her head. What are some good strategies for then?
This isn't social media. This is live person, you know face to face.
For a general principle, are we talking about talking with believers or non-believers?
Let's see if she replies right away to answer that one or she could if you're talking with a non-believer.
Then what I would recommend you do You really need to get Jason J Lucas's book ask them why and give that a really good read. Let me this is this is another very very well written book. It's not that thick and This will break it down for you.
You basically what it breaks down to the presuppositional approach basically says that if the Bible were not true Then it would be impossible to know anything Right if God does not exist if he's not revealed himself to us.
It'd be impossible to know anything. So remember what my definition of no is well, what's my definition of knowledge definition of knowledge is justified true belief so if you're talking with an evolutionist who believes that everything came about as a result of a Bunch of random mutations that happened over millions of years.
That's not directed. You have the physical Just stuff, you know goop and stuff happening and then suddenly you get rational thought out of that need to ask him the question. Well, how do you get the immaterial?
How do you get laws of logic from material soup? Like how do you get that? Right, so if you can't if you have no just that you have no the evolutionist has no justification for their ability to reason.
They have no what I like to do is I like to wait for somebody to make a moral statement like Oh, that's wrong for you to do that. You shouldn't teach kids creation. That's wrong. Like oh really wrong.
So you believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Well, what is your standard for truth? What is your standard for morality right and you ask them how they get that from a materialistic universe from it from an atheistic universe?
Right, so it basically boils down to how do you know that you keep asking that question? How do you know that? How do you know that? Oh, we know it through our senses. Well, how do you know that your senses are reliable?
See in a biblical perspective. We know that our senses are reliable because God has said that the seeing eye and the hearing ear God has made them both. And we know that God is not a liar. We know that he has built into us a certain a basic fundamental reliability of our senses, right?
We're not just living in an illusion and So because of that because that's the way that God has created us. We can rely upon our senses to some degree and say okay the things that I see around me. There's a laptop in front of me.
There's a keyboard. There's a there's a flashlight. I know that these things are actually here because you know, God has enabled me to to see them, right? So it all basically boils down to how do you know that if you keep asking the person?
How do you know that? How do you know that? How do you know that you find out what their ultimate standard is? So the Christians ultimate standard is if you have a biblical worldview, the ultimate standard is his word right in the Bible.
That's his that's his revealed word to us the materialist the naturalist the Atheist is going to say have to basically fall back on things like well I just know because I know I know because it works that they fall back on pragmatism or they fall back on their own Senses.
Well, I know because I can observe it. Well, how do you know that your senses are reliable, right? How do you know that you're not just imagining things? If you if you want if you want something that are really I go through a lot of this there I'm having I'm currently in the middle of a discussion a discussion on Twitter and I told myself I would never do this.
But here I am in the middle of it with an atheist. I think he's in the UK. His name is dr. Matt hunt and there's a protracted discussion going on and on and on and on and on and on. You know 200 characters at a time on Twitter.
So if you if you go to Twitter my handle is the number seven foot apologist and You can you can track down the conversation there you can see how I handle them and it basically just comes down to how do You know that how do you know that?
But again get Jay Lucas's book ask them why he'll break it down in a much more eloquent way than I was able to do just now.
It was good it was thorough. So um next question comes from Caden and he wants to know if you saw dr. Lyle's Discussion with Dr. Ross earlier this summer on revealed apologetics and and then have you seen any of dr. Lyle's follow-up Videos on his podcast where he analyzes that I have a matter of fact.
I I saw the presentation and then Mike Riddle and I had a discussion about it and we we both critiqued it and then Jason Lyle, you know started with his own analysis of the of the of the discussion and He actually Jason Lyle brought out some of the things that Mike Riddle and I had detected like, you know.
They're kind of some of the things that you chose to focus on, you know, they were kind of pressed for time. So it's really hard to do this when you're you know on your feet. It's a lot easier to do it in writing.
But yes, I did see it. Well, if there's one thing I can say about Hugh Ross is he is very persuasive. He is very confident. He's very well-spoken. He tends to you know, he smiles. He seems like a nice guy, right?
He's personable. Yeah, that's the way he comes across on screen. I have no idea what he's like in real life. So you look at him and he comes across with these these big numbers, you know. We know this to the trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a percentage, right?
And you're like wow. That must be true, right and Jason Lyle has just got a very different personality. So he's he's not quite as convincing I pursued me. He's not quite as persuasive as Hugh Ross is so.
Watched it. I watched the debate and I don't think I would have been able to do any better than Jason Lyle. So let's disabuse ourselves of any of notions like that but I just thought that there There were some things that he could have focused on a little better than he did and then Jason Lyle admitted as such In his follow-up commentary.
So yeah, I I follow his I'm subscribed to his newsletter I watch his videos and I read his blog posts. So yeah, I was very familiar with it. So overall I was I was kind of disappointed with it. But hey, you know what the truth is out there and like like Jason Lyle points out in his book the ultimate proof.
He says, you know what people are persuaded by bad arguments all the time. You know, so never ever ever confuse persuasion with proof, right? Proof is proof is definitive. Persuasion is highly subjective.
And Just because you just because you have you have proof doesn't mean somebody's gonna be persuaded. And that's what you see on Twitter on my Twitter feed with this with this atheist that I'm talking to keep laying out the proof, but.
But yeah, he's not persuaded but it's not my job. My job is to tell the truth. Let the Holy Spirit do the persuading anything else.
No other questions at this point. Ted. Ted made a comment when you were talking about Ideas of things to ask, you know if you're in person with somebody ask questions and he was saying that he finds out origins is a way to talk with evolutionists and.
And going along that line asking questions like where did things like time come from who created time? Why is it? Monotonically increasing.
Same for various laws of physics who made those. Oh, he's a fellow computer nerd right. Monotonically increasing.
I don't believe I've ever seen that word in writing ever or heard it.
Yeah.
So yeah, basically you can boil all that down to one question. How do you get the immaterial from the material? Right if we all started off as goop and everything started off as the Big Bang. Then how do you get laws of logic?
How do you get morality? How do you get? Any of that stuff. Here's another great question. Where do you get love? How do you get love out of goop? Right all these things that are immaterial you have no foundation for them, right?
And the Christian has a foundation for these things. We have love because well, we know we have a grounding for love because God is love. Right. We have a foundate. We have a the ability to we know what we know what right and wrong is because well.
We know from Romans 2 that God has written it on our hearts. Right. We have a we have a conscience. We have a conscience. It's written on our hearts. We have a basic sense. Everybody has a basic sense of right and wrong.
And we know from general revelation that God does exist and here's one thing I really harp on. With with with the atheists that I'm talking to on Twitter. I do not do not ever this is this is general advice for you.
Do not ever try to prove that God exists if somebody asks people if somebody asks you can you prove that God exists? Here's what you tell them. I don't need to prove them prove prove that God exists. You already know that God exists.
No, I don't. Actually, yes, you do. That's not what the Bible says. The Bible says you know God exists and you suppress the truth and unrighteousness. And I just keep hammering this home and they'll sit there and they'll say, you know.
This is ridiculous and they'll mock you and they'll make fun of you. But you keep going back to scripture take them back to the word says. You know what the God who knows the omniscient the omniscient omnipotent God of the universe.
The one who created you says, you know who he is and there's a guy by the name of site and Rubin Kate. Who's been who's been kind of kind of guiding me mentoring me a little bit and he uses this line.
He's he uses this question. He says what what kind of evidence would it take to convince you of the God who already says, you know, he exists. What evidence would be would convince you of the God who says you already know he exists?
Right every every one of us knows that God exists and that's not just talking about believers. Even the non-believer even the most strident atheist knows that God exists. You see they live like there are there is a grounding for morality for truth for the laws of logic for the reliability of our senses for For the for nature for the for the whole issue of induction.
They they live like these things are are given but they have no grounding for them. So they live like there is a God but they deny him they suppress the truth and unrighteousness. It's kind of like trying to hold a beach ball underwater.
Eventually, your hands are gonna get tired and the truth is gonna come up and bop you in the nose. And that's what happens all the time with atheists, right? They're trying to hold down this knowledge of God.
God doesn't exist. God doesn't exist and our job as apologists is to basically peel their fingers back. Until the beach ball of truth comes up and bops him in the nose. Let me have to push it back down, right?
So it's kind of fun to watch and push them all down. So, yeah, don't don't ever don't ever let anybody Convince you that you need to prove to them that God exists because God says you already know that I exist.
And what you need to do is repent. Yeah, that's that's basically the core presuppositional.
I think I'm Rob has what has a question and then and then we'll go ahead and end our Stream after his question. We have one question to ask off off Camera, okay. Go ahead.
Dan one question I have is uh I've been listening to some of Greg Coco's Videos and he's quite clear in saying.
The.
Tactic stuff, but then when he comes to is it a young earth and older thing? He sounds like he tends to lead word towards Hugh Ross and he does towards young earth. He does indeed.
So my pastor at my church has this saying that he likes to use keep the fish throw away the bones. First in Scripture tells us, you know the test all things keep that which is good, right? So Greg Coco is fantastic when it comes to you know.
The whole tactics thing play using the Columbo tactic and saying, you know, I'm a little confused. You know and and and leading people through conversations like that. He's. He's really good at that. But I I definitely disagree with some of his theology and particularly his views on the age of the earth.
So yeah, I actually.
Yeah, why hasn't anybody been able to turn his? Tactics loose on him to help him. See that the earth is not that old. I.
Don't know that's There there we could we could only speculate. I don't want to try to read the man's heart. I Greatly appreciate Greg Coco's ministry. And there's a number of apologists like almost every single big-name apologist you can think of sides with an old earth.
Are they all victims of having been brought to faith through campus crusade?
Yeah, I don't know how they were brought to how they were brought to faith, but I I just I think of all you know I don't want to name any names here. I mean, you know who they are. But I can't think of a very very popular big-name apologist aside from perhaps Ken Ham.
Who would who would unapologetically stand on a six-day creation or excuse me and Mike Riddle. Sorry. He's he's there, too. He's like, oh, I almost forgot Mike but yeah, like guys like, you know, like Frank Turek and and Greg Coco and Doug Ruthy is I can't even I don't know how to pronounce his last name all these guys they they they subscribe to an old earth and it's.
It saddens me and I actually tried to engage. I actually reached out to a To one prominent apologist that was soliciting an endorsement for my book. And he ultimately he said hey, I think your book is fresh creative innovative.
It's gonna help a lot of people a lot of Sunday school teachers and parents and whatever. He says but I just have one reservation your strong stance on the age of the earth and. So I said, okay. I'm thinking to myself.
You're an apologist. So apologize. So he says I believe very strongly based upon Scripture and science the kids need to be taught taught both sides of this issue. I said, okay. Can you give me your best argument both from Scripture and from science?
Why we should believe in an older and he refused to engage me on it. So I Get it because he's a big-name apologist and I'm just some dude with a website and a book like who am I and I'm not. I'm gonna I'm gonna gobble up his time.
So I get it, but I was still disappointed that you know. He refused to endorse my book just because of that but he acknowledges that it was this, you know. It was it was good stuff, but you had that younger stuff in there.
You're not teaching any of the older stuff. So I Think Hugh Ross and reasons to believe have had a very powerful influence because like I said, the man is very persuasive. He's incredibly persuasive and a lot of people go for that.
I mean guys like Norman Geisler, right? God rest his soul. Norman Geisler. Robbie Zacharias. They're no longer with us. They now know that you know, six days means six days. But you know when you've got some of the biggest brains in Christian apologetics, you know taking this position then it's only natural.
You know, what does scripture tell us right. Jesus said every student when he is fully trained will become like his master so if you've got. If you've got these guys put at the top of the top of the pyramid so to speak in terms of Christian apologetics leading the way.
It's no surprise that the guys who are coming up behind them are going to adopt the same viewpoints and a lot of issues.
And I was suspect a lot of these got their training through the Schofield's reference Bible.
Notes what he's quite clear in saying that. Oh, well, there's a big gap between they are verse 1 and verse 2 right and that then. Became the standard for campus crusade because that was the Bible that they used in their training.
Yeah. Yeah, my pastor loved.
The late pastor Ken Hudgerson, you know love the Schofield reference Bible, but he was like, yeah, this is he says this whole gap theory thing. They got in the footnotes here. It's a bunch of bunk. So not everybody who uses a Schofield reference Bible has has drunk that particular cup of Kool-Aid.
Shall we say? But yeah, there's it's it's When you got a you know What what happens in academia eventually eventually trickles down to the rest of us, right? Every student when he is like it when he's fully trained will become like his master.
So I this is the reason why you know, like Mike Riddle the riddles are so Adamant about training people to train other people right their whole ministry creation training Institute is about training people to train other people right so we can get people up in the higher levels of education to start training other people like how to have a biblical worldview and How to look at scripture and use a good hermeneutic on a solid hermeneutic on it to interpret it correctly.
So that's why I'm happy to be a part of what they're doing and and looking looking forward to doing more with them in the future.
Okay well, we're gonna go ahead and sign off our recording so if you want to for YouTube for and for Facebook if you want to go ahead and Throw out your website when last time and parting comments before I turn those off.
Sure, my website is seven foot apologist calm. You can either spell it out or you can use the number seven. Take your pick. It doesn't matter that you both goes to the same place. Seven foot apologist calm I have a blog there that occasionally I write on.
I also have a YouTube channel seven foot apologist I have a. I'm on Facebook. I spend most of my time on Facebook. Because I have longer comments that I can write. That's at seven foot apologist is my handle there that the number seven foot apologist and of course on Twitter at seven foot apologist the number Seven, so yeah, that's how I can be gotten hold of.
Okay, fantastic. Thank you for joining us tonight. I'm gonna go ahead and turn off.