I don't understand how they said everybody in the entire world came out her pussy foreal? wouldn't that make everybody brother and sisters? I don't believe that shit and if it was like that wouldn't we all be light skinned? I'm a Buddhist forever
1:God made Adam first, told him not to eat of the tree, “/then/” made Eve...2:God told Adam, because you listened to the voice of your wife, notice that God did “/not/” say to Eve, because you did “/not/” listen to your husband...3: God used the word “/curse/” to what the Serpent and Adam did in the garden, but “/not/” to what Eve did in the garden, yes?
Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil before eating the fruit or disobeying! So how could they have conscious knowledge of sinning, which is needed, in order to choose between good and evil?
@EGMAG the bible does not say that Eve disobeyed, the bible says "Adam" disobeyed and that "Eve was deceived"...read what I posted below in this same video, then read Genesis chapters 2 and 3, what say you now?
Honestly the Bible has never been clear on much of anything. In fact it is the most confusing book of contradictions and impossible statements ever conjured.
@EGMAG ??? then why are you posting this....Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil before eating the fruit or disobeying! So how could they have conscious knowledge of sinning, which is needed, in order to choose between good and evil?......means you are searching it out?
@EGMAG "In fact it is the most confusing book of contradictions and impossible statements ever conjured." as if we could not find a collection of individual books more confusing? quite the statement. You think there are not more confusing writings?
@EGMAG Only fundamental Christians take the story of creation to be an actual event. Well, that might not be entirely true but a lot of notable Christians believe in a old earth and don't take evolution to contradict Christian belief. Some of the notable ones are William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, John Leenox, as well as St Augastine back before science found out about the earths age as well as evolution. :P
I have heard Ravi Zacharias talk about Genesis before, and Adam and Eve's choices. He was talking about them deciding to play God themselves. to.... essentially begin deciding what they thought was right or wrong, instead of going with God. forgive me if i am misrepresenting, but when i heard him, he seemed to be saying some things I had not heard before when talking about Adam and Eve's sin.
In the religious studies segment of academia a "myth" is simply a story that's an important part of or relates in some way to culture(s) or religion(s).
In this usage calling something a myth is by no means meant to be a commentary on an specific stories truth or fiction.
It is however a recognition of relevance that a story has in relation to the tradition that the myth comes from.
Myth means made up and untrue. Your mental acrobats are astounding. Great stories have been both fiction and non fiction what is your point.the bible dosnt even make for great reading.
@cynt123able traditional or legendary story, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
you must be a complete....if you think jesus "the son of God" is God. If your son told you he was you, you would question his mental state. Read the bible again. This time lisen to what is said by scripture, not what you have been taught. Jesus Christ prayed to his father, not himself. Christ was the first spirit born.
@giantsrock99 N.T. is attacking straw. Fundamentalists agree that genesis 1-3 is more than just a listing of facts. What he fails to flesh out is the important question of how something can be a myth and historical at the same time. Once a Christian explains that neat trick I'll take them a little more seriously.
@RuinSonic I think what he is getting at is that Genesis 1-3 serves as an imagery-filled narrative of creation that shouldn't be taken completely literally, so I don't see why he has to show that Adam and Eve are historical. Notice how he said he thinks it is important for there to be "a" primal pair rather than "the" primal pair.
@giantsrock99 "I think what he is getting at is that Genesis 1-3 serves as an imagery-filled narrative of creation"
I didn't hear N.T. Wright argue for an allegory. He said Genesis 1-3 is a myth and it is HISTORICALLY. There's a big difference. A psalm or a proverb could be non-literal but you wouldn't call it historically true.
A "myth" (please understand "myth" does not have to mean "untrue") can include historical events or figures. Homer's mentioning of the city of Troy in the Iliad comes to mind.
@AgApE010 "Homer's mentioning of the city of Troy"
What myth is historically accurate? Sure myths can have true places, people or moral lessons, but that wasn't my point. I'm having trouble thinking of a myth that is 100% historically accurate. Help me out if you can.
@AgApE010 What parts of Genesis 1-3 are historical? There's no distinguishing factors where the author is talking about fact and when it is talking about a myth story, or allegory. And I wouldn't call the Illiad historically true just because it contains history or historical fact. That's just dishonest.
I didn't call the Illiad historically true. I said, and I quote, "A myth can include historical events or figures. Homer's mentioning of the city of Troy...comes to mind." You're being dishonest by misrepresenting me.
Just like how Homer doesn't come out and say "Troy is real, but the story of Achilles is not," Genesis doesn't come out and say what part is historical and what isn't. What myth have you read that does? But we know from other parts what is and isn't. I.e., Gen. 5.
@AgApE010 "You're being dishonest by misrepresenting me."
No I was using your example for another point. If you read my response I was saying that I can't think of a myth that is considered 100% historically accurate to which you responded by saying he's not claiming Genesis is totally accurate. Don't misrepresent me then say I'm being dishonest.
"What myth have you read that does?"
That's why he should call it an allegory/false because he has no reason to pick and choose which is real.
He's right. He clearly isn't reading the same Bible because the text is clear that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal 24-hour days. Hebrew scholars recognize that even if they don't believe it.
Well said, bestvalue. And I would ask you, meg, why you think that the advice you gave to bestvalue is any different than the advice I gave to you concerning channel comments?
You're still assuming that the text is meant to be a scientific explanation. You need to read Genesis for what it is, an ancient Near Eastern cosmogeny, not a modern scientific analysis and explanation.
@AgApE010 Agreed but was Genesis or was it not inspired by a God who knows all things and meant what he said? Of course there can be multiple layers of meaning. But a word must have a literal meaning BEFORE it can have a figurative one. Jesus couldn't have been "the door" unless doors really exist. And a "day" in Genesis must be a real day before it can mean a long period of time. I don't think Wright believes in a literal, 6-day creation. I think he's wrong.
I'm not saying the days of Genesis are long. The story speaks of six 24 hour days. That's pretty clear. But IT IS A STORY, not a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe, not an attempt to teach ancient people who could care less about cosmology. It is an ancient Near Eastern story similar in content and literary style to other stories of its time (such as the Enuma Elish, Epic of Atra-Khasis, and even some of the Egyptian's stories of creation).
I'm not saying the days of Genesis are long. The story speaks of six 24 hour days. That's pretty clear. But IT IS A STORY, not a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe, not an attempt to teach ancient people who could care less about cosmology. It is an ancient Near Eastern story similar in content and literary style to other stories of its time (such as the Enuma Elish, Epic of Atra-Khasis, and even some of the Egyptian's stories of creation).
What N.T Wright is doing here is giving more authority to a hypothetical scientific theory, which can be falsified using the scientific method, to the Bible. Then once it is falsofied he will adopt another theory over what the text of Gensis actually says. This is called 'Eisegesis', reading into the text what is actuall not there; if you Exegete the text it is talking about 7 24 hour days.
I too tried to harmonise the text with say millions of years old but it just do not work.
We see a day/night cycle and the order of how things were created.
We read God creating light before the sun and stars. This is very scientific as we see what light is not created by these celestical bodies but are products of them. Light belongs to the electromagnetic force of physics. Just a short answer.
Genesis 2:4 Gives us the name for Genesis, Generations, the order when things were brought into existance by God, from the previous chapter.
"Light belongs to the electromagnetic force of physics"?
The stories of Genesis are nearly identical to many of the contemporary stories of the ancient Near East. God was not interested in teaching the ancient Jews science. Of what relevance would that be to them? He simply used common stories of the day (i.e., a global flood myth) to relay His teachings to His people.
And Jesus can quote from Genesis without it being a literal account. Your logic here is flawed.
@AgApE010 My logic is flawless because Jesus was the God who created all things out of nothing. Jesus claimed to be God, that would mean he not only believed in the creation account but was instrumental in that work.
What God revealed to the ancient Hebrews has how he made things and why, these goes beyond mere science, it is revelation.
Light is a product of the electromagnetic force. Maxwells equations show that light is made up of electric and magnetic fields.
Your "logic" succumbs to question begging. Jesus can quote from Genesis without it being literal. Jesus quoted from the Psalms, and those weren't always literal.
Indeed, there was various forms of Jewish interpretation in Jesus' day (midrash, pesher, etc). We see the NT authors themselves employing some of these different interpretations.
@AgApE010 Again you are assuming what the Bible doesn't teach. The Bible teaches the divinity of the person of Christ who eternally existed before creation.
What you are doing applying 20th century assumptions to a text which has existed for thousands of years. You are trying to make naturalistic materialism to Scripture and not allowing the clear passages of Scripture to tell us what is clearly meant. The text itself tells us what it wants to convery. A day in these chapters is a 24 hour day
@AgApE010 "Jesus quoted from the Psalms, and those weren't always literal."
What about taking Jesus' quote about Jonah non-literally in Matthew 12:40? Did Jesus non-literally rise from the dead as well? How about Luke 11:50-51? Will 'This generation' be responsible for a creation along with an Adam and Eve that didn't literally exist?
How bout one more? Matthew 24:36-40. Is Jesus pretending he isn't endorsing a traditional flood story?
Spouting off random verses where Jesus quoted books literally at face-value doesn't disprove the fact that Jesus quoted other books that were allegorical and/or non-literal. Use logic instead of angrily replying to a comment that might just expand your mind.
Luke 11:50-51 is hardly random in fact it is very relevant. But I suppose you don't care what the Bible actually says. I'm simply taking the Bible at face value. Tell me how you interpret Exodus 20:8-11 where the Israelites are commanded to keep the Sabbath day holy since it was the day God rested?
I think my examples have a solid case against your interpretation. If Jesus took all these myth stories literally, including Adam and Eve, why not the rest?
I don't see your point from the verses in Luke 11. Do you think that I believe that Abel didn't exist? Or that he wasn't murdered by his brother? Stop attacking straw men.
Again, with Exodus 20, you seem to assume that I'm arguing that the days are long periods of time. Stop. Stop trying to argue when you don't even know your opponent's position. You lose a lot of credibility that way.
I'm using the Bible to tell how the Bible should be interpreted. You want to pick and choose with the Bible because you recognize science and reason doesn't support a straight forward interpretation. Why should we assume one tale should be considered fact and another one an allegory?
"...days are long periods of time"
You assume too much. I actually wasn't. I've been using the Bible to show the literal interpretation of the bible the whole time. You sir are grabbing straw.
I know my communicating with you at this point will be fruitless insomuch as you are now much too defensive to will to learn anything. So I'll close with recommending you a book on Old Testament theology (tat's not so bad, is it?). "An Old Testament Theology" by Dr. Bruce Waltke is one of the best works out there on the Old Testament. Waltke is a widely recognized scholar. So "love the LORD your God with all your mind" and pick up a copy and learn more about this topic.
@AgApE010 "you are now much too defensive to will to learn anything"
O please, I won't let you get away with saying that I misrepresented your views when I'm telling you how the bible goes against your interpretation. I don't have to use direct quotes tailored to your specific view to show you that the bible was interpreted literally. We can go on to church history and on and on. You sir have presented nothing but pick apart everything I said without actually arguing against my point.
@AgApE010 I'd love to read some of there stuff but there's just so much I need to be reading already. I really don't have a stake in this. But your right about one point. I shouldn't be arguing with someone if I don't know their view. I cannot debate Christians without knowing their whole belief system and worldview because they take 1000 things for granted that I don't. I much rather hear your interpretation of the points I presented and how you view Genesis than try to win an argument.
Exodus 20:11 The writer of Genesis (Moses, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) tells us again the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days and confirms this by giving us the 4th commandment to keep and santify the Sabbath as the day of rest be God rested on the 7th day from creation.
One more thought. Jesus Christ himself is God from the OT who quotes from Genesis 1,2 & 3 confirming these Scriptural truths are literal. In no way can these texts be construed as flowery poetry.
Try excellent Bible scholars Robert M. Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, Gary Greenberg, G.A.Wells, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Albert Schweitzer, Joseph Mccabe, Joseph Wheless. Hector Avalos, Thom Stark, Earl Doherty, Timothy Freke, Barbara Walker, Barbara Thiering, Gerd Ludemann, also Israel Finkelstein, Victor J. Stenger, Richard Carrier, Ken Humphreys
You don't find these questions asked in Britain because it's a completely post-Christian culture! Wright is right in saying that the British don't relate moral issues, such as whether or not to murder children, to the Bible. Not surprising that God-hating atheists wouldn't consult God's Word. Their culture is so wicked because they call the Truth a myth so they can feel free to live their vulgar lives. Wierd that Wright believes in the resurrection but not the creation.
1) Adam and Eve literally (Romans 5:12) - from Paul from a traditional Jewish background; Romans is known to have been a very early writing of the Christian church circa. 50s AD
2) With this in mind - how can evolution be matched with the Biblical teaching of sin entering a perfect world. Entropy does imply the universe is deteriorating 3) and Noah's Flood - that it will be consider myth by future generations (2 Peter 3:3-7)-a common view today?
@MrAliyak You could take the view of the most respected Medieval Jewish Theologian Maimonides. Maimonides said that Adam was not the first human being, but the first human being to become "man". Meaning, Adam was the first being to recieve the "breath of life" which Maimonides said is the soul. Maimonides says that before Adam, other humans were just like other animals. Anyway, that is just one view. Most ancient theologians instructed their flock not to read Genesis too literally.
quite right, Adam and Eve have nothing to do with modern secular politics.
as a trained classical musician I find Wrights comparisions to Beethoven completely ignorant.
the literal historicity of Adam and Eve is logically crucial to the entire meaning of scripture. If Adam was not literal then christ was not the second Adam
Wright is fudging the issue.
It is history, but he misrepresents a historical reading of it. I dont think well of integrity for so doing
@Strefanasha His point about "political issues" has to do with the general tendency to lump people into broad categories of "conservatives" and "liberals", categories that span both religious and political parties in America. I know not all conversatives are Young Earth Creationists, but it's still an category-defining issue among many Christians over there, in a way it isn't in Europe.
I'm one of the people who believe that Genesis means what it says. It says six days because it means six days. It says that death came to the world as a result of man's disobedience because that is what happened. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't also say all of the things N.T. Wright was just saying. The most awesome thing about the Bible is it never stops being new. God wrote it. There are layers and layers and you can study your whole life and still find new things when you read it.
@WirtyDord You sound a bit ignorant, you are treating the whole Bible as one book when infact it is a library, of 66 (!) books. All of them trying to convey truths in different ways, genres and literature styles, different times and by different authors. Genesis is true, but that doesn't mean that there were a guy named Adam 6000 years ago who ate a fruit from a physical tree and then got to feel of Gods wrath. You are missing the point of Genesis.
I like NT Wright's insight on how there is a structural framework to the beginning of Genesis, but at the same time there was a heartfelt way of explaining these events that took place. Like adding notes to the staff, there are highs and lows, and even though those highs and lows are not exactly clear, there is still music!!
I think Adam and Eve may very well be symbolic for a huge amount of ancient people covering a huge amount of time. Things like talking snakes and magic fruits would be symbolic anywhere else in the Bible. Remember also, that argument that Paul's reasoning demands Adam was the first biological man is based on Augustine's corrections to Paul's difficult words, rather than Paul's words.
Does he think evo is not a big problem in Britian he lives in hos pwn world, Evolution is a big issue in, why is most britians athiest.Also keep in mind N.T. Wright is New testament scholar not a Hebrew scholar.Notice he never here go to the actual scripture,but only superimposes his own view from his alreayd accepted science.His good on Paul,but defenitely doesn't seem good on hebrew.His argument is self refuting,as he hiself says that we should conform genesis to culture?didn't he?
To be more specific rather than mystic, Genesis 8.21 proposes: No more global smiting by God after the Flood. So what is the Rapture about? Why doesn't NT Wright be non-PC and offend the Apocalypticists by citing Gen 8.21?
Or what about the tidal wave verse of Matthew 8.24. Isn't Jesus' response a denial of Apocalypticism, as in His later "God of the Living not Death" rejecting the Secular Imperial death cults of 17BC-70AD?
Remember, Apocalypticism auto-generates if there is mass hopelessness?
this bloke is so mature. compare to immaturity displayed fundamentalist Christians in the US, particularly of the Calvinist kind. His comments on the need to decouple issues from one another in America.
... are right on. His brilliant reversal of the "conforming to culture" argument was also right on. Little do those US fundamentalists realize that it is their beliefs that are conforming to a view of society that they hold. But not necessarily to the kind of society and values that God wants. They read the Bible so as to conform to their world view, which is usually white, baptist America of the 1950s. I'm astounded at the ignorance of some of these professed Christians.
The historicity lies in it's mythological symbolism and the mythological symbolism lies in its historicity. That it occurred and that Adam and Eve are very real personages is established by Jesus referring to them as real people. It did happen - but the way in which the ancient story is told is shrouded in deeply symbolic meaning. That does not mean to say it is no less real and actual.
Slick and very dishonest way of deflecting serious scrutiny. All this is, is a view inside one man's very confused head. "The bible isn't meant to be taken literally - but god exists because the bible says so."
What?
You can't just say "Oh it's just a parable everyone!" and then argue FOR god. I mean what the hell is wrong with this guy? Furthermore, what the hell is wrong with the person who forwarded this man to me in some attempt to justify christianity? Christians are 100% retarded.
@YourBrainOnReligion If you took time to read wright i think you'd find he is an extremely intelligent man and a scholar of the highest calibre. This doesnt mean he's right (maybe he is N.T. Wrong :)) but you cant brush him aside like that. Its the equivalent of a christian brushing dawkins aside as a mentalist because they dont agree with his conclusions.
The mental gymnastics required, to make sense, of what is obviously outdated Bronze Age horseshit, is astounding. Don't you love it when people like this, talk in a measured, breathy, semi-rational voice, propounding sincerity, whilst actaually operating in complete delusion. What a laugh. Dream on, buddy, dream on.
slippy441: Pretty good at beating up on "ignorant evangelicals," aren't you? How about giving us your statement of faith? What do you believe? "You can't start a species with two individuals"? What lab has produced that breathtaking result? I don't want a "consensus"; I want an experiment that confirmed this particular hypothesis. Oh, yeah: And "Eve"? She's my ancestor, common though I may be.
slippy441: Pretty good at beating up on "ignorant evangelicals," aren't you? How about giving us your statement of aith? What do you believe? "You can't start a species with two individuals"? What lab has produced that breathtaking result? I don't want a "consensus"; I want an experiment that confirmed this particular hypothesis. Oh, yeah: And "Eve"? She's my ancestor, common though I may be.
@billybagbom You got to be kidding me! You think it takes a lab to determine that you cant start a species from 2 individuals? And that it would be a "breakthrough"?? Fucking retard religious fanatics... Why is all this NEW information to you? I cant post links obviously by try actually searching for that answer. Just google "inbreeding" and find the hundreds of experiments from the past century showing why it doesnt work. Yeah, we've known this for over 100yrs but you idiots choose not to read.
His statements on myth are accurate. Some have taken the myth word to mean some sort of derogatory untruth. An excellent book on this topic is Myth Conceptions by Tom Snyder. We too often take the bait tossed by skeptics without stepping back and dialoging in a more intelligent manner...study to show thyself approved...
some readings are made to order for symbolic reading...most of the bible is that way...to include much of Revelation. if you don't interpret them more deeply, you miss the deeper meanings.
@MayonR Laws dont make things sick. Its fucking sick even if it was legal lol. Are you telling me that having sex with your parents or siblings isnt OK just because its illegal? You have major problems my friend....
Its simple: The writers of the bible didnt think beyond the first generation and peobably never intended people 2000yrs later to think it was true. But SURE ENOUGH we have idiots now that do just that.
@slippy441 Play the game, "If you were the last two people on earth would you mate with,(blank). You'll be surprised what people say when put in that context. Of course it's sick, but your thinking within the context of your little world. [[The writers of the bible didnt think beyond the first generation and peobably never intended people 2000yrs later to think it was true.]] So they just got together and were just making episodes like Seinfeld.Get your info on Zeitgeist?
@MayonR Yep, and if that heppened, the species would be doomed. No matter how OK you were with it. Do you somehow have zero knowledge of genetics and think that you can start a species from 2 individuals? You cant. You inbreed in ONE generation and you cant continue a species that way. Its not my "little world" do some research on inbreeding. Cheetas for example are having problems because their population necked down to 14 individuals in the past. Starting over from14 is bad 2 is DOOM!
@slippy441 Mainly i was addressing the philosophical part of it in the ancient scenario.Because you thought it was sick remember? So in that case whatever transpired wouldn't be as sick since it was necessary.It is sick today, and that is what you are used to and basing it on. Even genetics has traced all of us to a common source. So it would not be a shallow gene pool like a cheetah but all the traits we have today. An uncorrupted gene pool.
@MayonR It is sick and for good reason. You dont think so?
Guess what?! Being able to trace a species back to one individual doesnt mean a genetic bottleneck. It just means we are related to that one individual. I can trace 30 family members back to one great great grandmother and that doesnt mean there was JUST my great great grandmother and her husband on earth. Unrelated genes are essential to a species surviving. The human mitochondrial eve was aruond before there were even races of people
@slippy441 [[It is sick and for good reason. You dont think so?]] Of course I do. Assuming it did happen that way, it might make us blush but they wouldn't have thought it sick at the time.[[I can trace 30 family members back to one great great grandmother and that doesnt mean there wa]] Sure there are many theories surrounding it, but it still is a profound move towards the Biblical account, not away from it.
@slippy441 [[It is sick and for good reason. You dont think so?]] Of course i do. Assuming it did happen, I would guess it was not sick to them, not being conditioned by moral law or knowing anything else. [[I can trace 30 family members ba]] There are many hypothesis, but one thing is for sure. It is a profound move towards the Biblical account than against it.
@MayonR You're not getting it. It doesnt matter how they felt about incest. Its FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE to start a new species from just 2 individuals. I thought I covered that... Inbreeding isnt just bad because of the way we feel about it. Incest is a short road to extinction. In short, Adam and Eve starting the human species is impossible like most of the stories in the bible. Too bad you slept through biology class.
@slippy441 As if I'm not getting it. As if I made up all these theories all by myself, like I know you didn't. As there are no Christian professionals,no scholars, there is not one Christian Scientist, there are no Christian biologist or any other profession because all of them are preachers. Get out of your little world once in awhile and quit making it so personal. It's not about me or you, it's one of the most deeply debated subjects in humanity. And it's still going.
@MayonR I know there are Christian biologists, but they all support evolution. As do all geneticists. Biology and genetics make no sense at all without evolution, and that as factual as it gets.
SO what theories am I claiming that you "made up all by yourself"? You presented no theories. .
@slippy441 I wonder if you can go back and see some of the answers I give to these recurring questions. If you don't see them ask away. I gave the hypothesis covering incest, and the gene pool. Didn't say you would agree and don't doubt you will contend. The Bible leaves all these scenarios open and even the science behind this is changing as they confirm the mutation rate. Another thing you must remember is it traces it back to a common ancestor which could be after Eve.
@MayonR The hypothesis that you covered was "they didnt think it was ad back then" and that doesnt matter. You seem to be ignoring the fact that YOU CANT START A SPECIES WITH 2 INDIVIDUALS!!!! No matter what.
And what would Eve e a common ancestor of?...You dont know what a common ancestor is do you? I'll give you an example: Wolves are the common ancestor of pit bulls and miniature poodles. So how is eve a "common ancestor" again?
@b29349 Could our DNA have been different? LOL no! Inbreeding doesnt work and is a hole in the plot of the bible story that you think is real. They wouldnt be our ancestors if they had different DNA. Do you know what DNA is? What are you talking about with the "smart apes crawling out of soup" thing?? Are you just really really bad a science and think thats what evolution is??
@b29349 LOLOL WHAT??? Uh NO. Gravity and magnitism have no effect on DNA, retard. You never went to med school obviously- you would be a bit more educated.
Try wikipedia, it will help ypu atleast know what the words mean.
The Creation myths are commentaries, inter alia, on the parallel Creation myth of Homer/Theogeny where the Original Sin/Crime is a treason cutting off the Testimonials of Heaven with a sickle (secula L), also called No Magisteria (NOMA) and Gould's NOMA-hood.
Figuratively, element heaven (mostly dynamic logic) went, as did afterlife Heaven, the Bible, mono-theism, and so on. The ancients called this Titan coup "Secular", a word with unchanged meaning. Testimonials later included Gospel and Jews
He's hit the nail right on the head! Moses wasn't writing a science textbook or an entry for The Times! He was doing something different. Creationists completely miss the point. The confusion stems from us, not from the Bible.
His Apostasy flows from his mouth, do not believe him or others who speak such heresy! God set the example for us in Creating in six literal days and resting the seventh! How could plants made on day 3, that need birds made on day 5 to pollinate them survive if each day was thousand's or millions of years? The Day-Age theory tries to compromise between a literal rendering of Scripture and atheistic philosophies about the past that deny a Creator! Some people are just plainly willingly ignorant!
Jesus' teaching tool of choice was parables. Is it unrealistic that God might have used allegory elsewhere to convey life's most important concepts? I find the idea that Genesis is allegorical—packed with divine founts of wisdom tucked cleverly beneath the surface—so faith-building. We invite trouble when we demote Genesis to nothing more than a science or history book (it is much more valuable than that)!
I *highly* recommend "The Beginning of Wisdom" by Leon Kass.
I find it interesting that N.T. Wright assumes that everyone who believes in 6-day creation (like myself) has that dualistic view of end times and disagrees with the "big picture" of Genesis being about God creating the heavens and the earth to be His dwelling place, and creating man to share it with. I agree with all of that, but I still think that God did make the earth in 6 days and that Adam and Eve were historical people (which most Christians throughout history have believed as well).
Martin it's sometimes called "argumentum ad hominem" I experienced the same approach used with a prof. of law. I was holding to 2 Pet.3 eschatology "new heaven and earth" he was trying to defend traditional "no new earth" theology. Claimed those who hold to 2 Pet.3 held it for "carnal" reasons "at least we'll still be able to play golf" after the parousia etc.
I pointed out this weak approach to debate (used by Tom here) my friend was embarrassed acknowledged the weakness of his approach. Apologised and we moved on.
@fightintheshade Wright is not attempting to debate here. He recognizes the difference between scholarly debate and summary and presentation of material on basic levels for the everyday person. Here he is simply telling a 'story' so to speak and not endeavoring to defend it. If you have an itch to engage him in scholarly debate pick up his "Christian Origins and the Question of God" volumes.
@xxpowwowbluexx - pure semantics OK he is simply telling an ad hominem " story" e.g. creationists say "I'm not going to study the text, I'm just going to flattening it out so it conforms to the culture questions my culture today is telling me to ask, I think that's a form of being unfaithful to the text itself". Tom's ad hominem "story telling" isn't the crime of the century but it's a bit cheeky, andpoints to weakness in "his story line". Not sure why you think I've an itch to debate the man?
If God can make water flow from a rock, part the Red Sea (with a WALL of water on each side) and have the Israelites walk on DRY ground, rain manna (the bread of angels) from heaven in the Israelites camp, cause Nebuchadnezzar to have the mind of an animal for 7 yrs and eat grass like the cattle of the field, raise Jesus from the dead and cause sinners, like you and me, to be saved by grace - SURELY He can create the world in 6 days...can't He? Yes, I do believe in Adam & Eve as literal too.
@truebluewitness I understand your sentiments. I used to argue for a strict literal reading. Now, I truly believe that a literal reading sells God's message short. The point is that *God created the universe.* He did! Yet, it seems that God might be trying to tell us something much more important to our souls than "here is what I did, 1-6."
I believe that the entire science vs. scripture debate is a distraction, cunningly crafted by Satan himself. We're missing the point when we go there!
@truebluewitness Of course God could create the world in 6 days, I don't think any Christian would argue with you there. The question is if He did, if the Bible says that He did, and whether or not the world seems like it was created in massively compressed chunks or time, or not.
Personally, I find it weird to think God was in such a hurry to get everything ready in 6 days, and then took 1000's of years during salvation history (to this day), and spent 30/33 of His earthly life as a carpenter.
@Hrugnir That is, Jesus spent the first 30 years of His life without doing any "ministry". He took his sweet time. Even during His ministry, He was pretty ineffective by human standards. Kept walking away when they wanted to make Him king, and when masses gathered, he offended them with radical teachings rather than trying to gather the masses.
Something tells me God is more subtle and ingenius in showing his glory than doing it by finishing his art class assignment faster than anyone else.
@Hrugnir No where in the Bible does it says Jesus spent his life as a carpenter... Show my a scripture in full context in which it says Jesus himself was a carpenter. I do know it says his earthy step-father Joseph was a carpenter. I can show you where Jesus was preaching at the age of twelve.
I don't know if he did spend his working life as a carpenter, but all the Temple event suggests is a growing awareness in Jesus of his vocation. The gaping silence between birth and baptism in most gospels make it pretty clear that Jesus was pretty laid back until the time was right. I'm not saying he was lazy, I'm saying that knew how to be a true human being. That's what Jesus came to do - to save humanity. So he lived humanly, not super-humanly.
Genesis is not a piece of art, open to all to see it however they please, in whatever manner is most beneficial to their relative interests. Genesis itself is an interpretation, given by God, of a piece of what can arguably be seen (at the very least) as art, which is creation.
To compare it to a symphony or play is to clearly express your doubt of the validity of its intended meaning, but to supplement your own so as not to call it a lie.
Wow. I haven't heard anyone interpret Genesis as being for the Jewish people because that's the way tabernacles were supposed to be built. That's pretty cool. (won't touch the furious youtube debate) Good video.
So does the Norse story of Odin, Hoenir, and Lodur creating mankind from a pair of trees deserve the same kind of deeper textual analysis? Did you read that one for all it's worth? By what criteria is your myth superior? Clearly you think it is or else you wouldn't be Christian.
@RichardMNixon We're Christian because of Christ. Christ is our starting point, not Adam. It is Christ who described the Old Testament as authoritative, therefore whatever "myths" (if they really are myths) they may contain are authoritative as descriptions of God's character, His relationship with us, etc. etc... One theologian puts it this way, "We do not believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible; we believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ.".
And yet your only source of information about Christ is the Bible, that's why these "is the Bible true" questions are an issue. If you can't believe the Bible, how can you believe in Christ?
@RichardMNixon Only source? what about almost 2000 years of Church history and tradition, what about the early patristic writings and those of the apologists, what about the later 'gnostic' interpretations of Jesus?
Again, you're still reading things about Christ and then worshiping him, so what glorban said is still either false or circular. I've listened to modern apologists, it's a very well connotated word. They're apologizing for the failures of their beliefs.
If you'd like to impress me, find a contemporary, extrabiblical source giving definitive evidence that Jesus existed, not just a bunch of stories his worshipers wrote 100+ years later.
@RichardMNixon I can speak from personal experience and on behalf of others, for whom worship of Christ is not practiced as a result of evidence provided in scriptures. I stand with Glorban in asserting that we are Christian because of our experience of Christ. Contra Glorban, I would suggest that this does not lead us to awknowledge the truth of scripture, and that as Christians, Christ should be our hermeneutic when reading scripture.
So you're saying Christ appeared to you? Why has he not appeared to >95% of Japan? Does he love them less than he loves white people? Why is it a miracle when Christ appears to someone, and a mental illness when someone else does? Do you think followers of other religions are lying about their figures coming to them? Subjective anecdotes won't convince me.
The NT was all written at least decades after the crucifixion, I'd like something contemporary.
@RichardMNixon Also, your etymology is a little anachronistic. our word Apologetics comes from the greek word apologia. Originally an 'apology' was a structured defense of ones position on a matter. Im not trying to impress you, but would like to know why you need 'extrabiblical' sources, bearing in mind that 'biblical' is a term coined long after the canonical scriptures were complete.
Brilliant. Need to listen to it a few times to unpack some of what he is saying here. It saddens me that so many wish to reduce the rich tapestry of Genesis to a simplistic scientific document. God's theological intent is primary and, it seems to me, the Glory is lost in the secondary [mis]uses of the text.
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't understand how they said everybody in the entire world came out her pussy foreal? wouldn't that make everybody brother and sisters? I don't believe that shit and if it was like that wouldn't we all be light skinned? I'm a Buddhist forever
DrowzyYan 3 weeks ago
Load of English Crap.
desasterz 1 month ago
Comment removed
DEREKSEA1 1 month ago
1:God made Adam first, told him not to eat of the tree, “/then/” made Eve...2:God told Adam, because you listened to the voice of your wife, notice that God did “/not/” say to Eve, because you did “/not/” listen to your husband...3: God used the word “/curse/” to what the Serpent and Adam did in the garden, but “/not/” to what Eve did in the garden, yes?
hemet92544 1 month ago
Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil before eating the fruit or disobeying! So how could they have conscious knowledge of sinning, which is needed, in order to choose between good and evil?
EGMAG 1 month ago
@EGMAG the bible does not say that Eve disobeyed, the bible says "Adam" disobeyed and that "Eve was deceived"...read what I posted below in this same video, then read Genesis chapters 2 and 3, what say you now?
hemet92544 1 month ago
@hemet92544 what say you now? <<
YOU REALLY TRULY BELIEVE YOUR OWN HORSESHIT DON'T YOU?
EGMAG 1 month ago
@EGMAG you can hate me if you want, the bible is clear on that, but if you want to talk about Genesis that okay
hemet92544 1 month ago
@hemet92544 bible is clear <<
Honestly the Bible has never been clear on much of anything. In fact it is the most confusing book of contradictions and impossible statements ever conjured.
Why do you think people can't understand it?
EGMAG 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EGMAG ??? then why are you posting this....Adam and Eve did not know the difference between good and evil before eating the fruit or disobeying! So how could they have conscious knowledge of sinning, which is needed, in order to choose between good and evil?......means you are searching it out?
hemet92544 1 month ago
@EGMAG "In fact it is the most confusing book of contradictions and impossible statements ever conjured." as if we could not find a collection of individual books more confusing? quite the statement. You think there are not more confusing writings?
alastairblakepeters 1 month ago
@alastairblakepeters more confusing writings? <<
Lot n lots. Like sHitlers mein kampf, the quran, turner diaries and others.
EGMAG 1 month ago
@EGMAG then id like to say its NOT the most confusing book.
alastairblakepeters 1 month ago
@alastairblakepeters
Well how do explain the universe being 6,000 (thousand) years old?
EGMAG 4 weeks ago
@EGMAG I dont. I think its millions or billions.
alastairblakepeters 4 weeks ago
@EGMAG oh, you might find this list interesting, of christians who dont think the earth has to be 6000 years old.
"Notable Christians Open to an Old-universe, Old-earth Perspective" first hit on google.
a current favorite of mine is John Lennox.
alastairblakepeters 4 weeks ago
@EGMAG Only fundamental Christians take the story of creation to be an actual event. Well, that might not be entirely true but a lot of notable Christians believe in a old earth and don't take evolution to contradict Christian belief. Some of the notable ones are William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, John Leenox, as well as St Augastine back before science found out about the earths age as well as evolution. :P
92xtaylor 1 week ago
I have heard Ravi Zacharias talk about Genesis before, and Adam and Eve's choices. He was talking about them deciding to play God themselves. to.... essentially begin deciding what they thought was right or wrong, instead of going with God. forgive me if i am misrepresenting, but when i heard him, he seemed to be saying some things I had not heard before when talking about Adam and Eve's sin.
alastairblakepeters 1 month ago
The fact is Christianity is about History period.So Genesis 1 and 2 matter on the historical level
Zwemer100 2 months ago
ease up you dogmatic atheists. :D
Christians aren't the enemy, Christianity is. ;)
houseofcantor 2 months ago
In the religious studies segment of academia a "myth" is simply a story that's an important part of or relates in some way to culture(s) or religion(s).
In this usage calling something a myth is by no means meant to be a commentary on an specific stories truth or fiction.
It is however a recognition of relevance that a story has in relation to the tradition that the myth comes from.
joshuamiller79 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He must be talking about Protestants... Because the One True Catholic Church already has this covered!
213kidangel 2 months ago
Weasel words.
ruthamyallan1 2 months ago
Myth means made up and untrue. Your mental acrobats are astounding. Great stories have been both fiction and non fiction what is your point.the bible dosnt even make for great reading.
cynt123able 3 months ago
@cynt123able traditional or legendary story, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
PaytonFu 2 months ago
Very interesting
FeignofCordor 3 months ago
the moving bug on the wall was kind of distractive, I couldn't help but stare, lol
siakniwaleng 3 months ago
Comment removed
montyc0924 4 months ago
you must be a complete....if you think jesus "the son of God" is God. If your son told you he was you, you would question his mental state. Read the bible again. This time lisen to what is said by scripture, not what you have been taught. Jesus Christ prayed to his father, not himself. Christ was the first spirit born.
LAANTHONYS 4 months ago
NT Wright is the man
giantsrock99 4 months ago
@giantsrock99 N.T. is attacking straw. Fundamentalists agree that genesis 1-3 is more than just a listing of facts. What he fails to flesh out is the important question of how something can be a myth and historical at the same time. Once a Christian explains that neat trick I'll take them a little more seriously.
RuinSonic 3 months ago
Comment removed
giantsrock99 3 months ago
@RuinSonic I think what he is getting at is that Genesis 1-3 serves as an imagery-filled narrative of creation that shouldn't be taken completely literally, so I don't see why he has to show that Adam and Eve are historical. Notice how he said he thinks it is important for there to be "a" primal pair rather than "the" primal pair.
giantsrock99 3 months ago
@giantsrock99 "I think what he is getting at is that Genesis 1-3 serves as an imagery-filled narrative of creation"
I didn't hear N.T. Wright argue for an allegory. He said Genesis 1-3 is a myth and it is HISTORICALLY. There's a big difference. A psalm or a proverb could be non-literal but you wouldn't call it historically true.
RuinSonic 3 months ago
@RuinSonic
A "myth" (please understand "myth" does not have to mean "untrue") can include historical events or figures. Homer's mentioning of the city of Troy in the Iliad comes to mind.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 "Homer's mentioning of the city of Troy"
What myth is historically accurate? Sure myths can have true places, people or moral lessons, but that wasn't my point. I'm having trouble thinking of a myth that is 100% historically accurate. Help me out if you can.
RuinSonic 3 months ago
@RuinSonic
Did Bishop Wright say that Genesis 1-3 is 100% historical? I don't think so...
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 What parts of Genesis 1-3 are historical? There's no distinguishing factors where the author is talking about fact and when it is talking about a myth story, or allegory. And I wouldn't call the Illiad historically true just because it contains history or historical fact. That's just dishonest.
RuinSonic 3 months ago
@RuinSonic
I didn't call the Illiad historically true. I said, and I quote, "A myth can include historical events or figures. Homer's mentioning of the city of Troy...comes to mind." You're being dishonest by misrepresenting me.
Just like how Homer doesn't come out and say "Troy is real, but the story of Achilles is not," Genesis doesn't come out and say what part is historical and what isn't. What myth have you read that does? But we know from other parts what is and isn't. I.e., Gen. 5.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 "You're being dishonest by misrepresenting me."
No I was using your example for another point. If you read my response I was saying that I can't think of a myth that is considered 100% historically accurate to which you responded by saying he's not claiming Genesis is totally accurate. Don't misrepresent me then say I'm being dishonest.
"What myth have you read that does?"
That's why he should call it an allegory/false because he has no reason to pick and choose which is real.
RuinSonic 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Can we somehow make reading the Bible a requirement for Christians in America?
Desertphile 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fantastic video, very well spoken.
whatthehellbook . com
whatthehellbook 5 months ago
I would have liked him to address the text more so than kind of laying an ambiguity over it all.
FillTheirVoid 5 months ago
He's right. He clearly isn't reading the same Bible because the text is clear that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal 24-hour days. Hebrew scholars recognize that even if they don't believe it.
bestvalue 5 months ago
@bestvalue Are you spamming or what? If you're going to comment, at least watch the entire video first.
megaead69 5 months ago
@megaead69 I DID watched the entire video before commenting. What's your point? What did he say that disputes what I said?
bestvalue 5 months ago
@megaead69
Well said, bestvalue. And I would ask you, meg, why you think that the advice you gave to bestvalue is any different than the advice I gave to you concerning channel comments?
justchemicali 5 months ago
@bestvalue
You're still assuming that the text is meant to be a scientific explanation. You need to read Genesis for what it is, an ancient Near Eastern cosmogeny, not a modern scientific analysis and explanation.
AgApE010 5 months ago
@AgApE010 Agreed but was Genesis or was it not inspired by a God who knows all things and meant what he said? Of course there can be multiple layers of meaning. But a word must have a literal meaning BEFORE it can have a figurative one. Jesus couldn't have been "the door" unless doors really exist. And a "day" in Genesis must be a real day before it can mean a long period of time. I don't think Wright believes in a literal, 6-day creation. I think he's wrong.
bestvalue 5 months ago
@bestvalue
I'm not saying the days of Genesis are long. The story speaks of six 24 hour days. That's pretty clear. But IT IS A STORY, not a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe, not an attempt to teach ancient people who could care less about cosmology. It is an ancient Near Eastern story similar in content and literary style to other stories of its time (such as the Enuma Elish, Epic of Atra-Khasis, and even some of the Egyptian's stories of creation).
AgApE010 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bestvalue
I'm not saying the days of Genesis are long. The story speaks of six 24 hour days. That's pretty clear. But IT IS A STORY, not a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe, not an attempt to teach ancient people who could care less about cosmology. It is an ancient Near Eastern story similar in content and literary style to other stories of its time (such as the Enuma Elish, Epic of Atra-Khasis, and even some of the Egyptian's stories of creation).
AgApE010 5 months ago
What N.T Wright is doing here is giving more authority to a hypothetical scientific theory, which can be falsified using the scientific method, to the Bible. Then once it is falsofied he will adopt another theory over what the text of Gensis actually says. This is called 'Eisegesis', reading into the text what is actuall not there; if you Exegete the text it is talking about 7 24 hour days.
I too tried to harmonise the text with say millions of years old but it just do not work.
Surfxeo 5 months ago
We see a day/night cycle and the order of how things were created.
We read God creating light before the sun and stars. This is very scientific as we see what light is not created by these celestical bodies but are products of them. Light belongs to the electromagnetic force of physics. Just a short answer.
Genesis 2:4 Gives us the name for Genesis, Generations, the order when things were brought into existance by God, from the previous chapter.
Surfxeo 5 months ago
@Surfxeo
"Light belongs to the electromagnetic force of physics"?
The stories of Genesis are nearly identical to many of the contemporary stories of the ancient Near East. God was not interested in teaching the ancient Jews science. Of what relevance would that be to them? He simply used common stories of the day (i.e., a global flood myth) to relay His teachings to His people.
And Jesus can quote from Genesis without it being a literal account. Your logic here is flawed.
AgApE010 5 months ago
@AgApE010 My logic is flawless because Jesus was the God who created all things out of nothing. Jesus claimed to be God, that would mean he not only believed in the creation account but was instrumental in that work.
What God revealed to the ancient Hebrews has how he made things and why, these goes beyond mere science, it is revelation.
Light is a product of the electromagnetic force. Maxwells equations show that light is made up of electric and magnetic fields.
Surfxeo 5 months ago
@Surfxeo
Your "logic" succumbs to question begging. Jesus can quote from Genesis without it being literal. Jesus quoted from the Psalms, and those weren't always literal.
Indeed, there was various forms of Jewish interpretation in Jesus' day (midrash, pesher, etc). We see the NT authors themselves employing some of these different interpretations.
AgApE010 5 months ago
@AgApE010 Again you are assuming what the Bible doesn't teach. The Bible teaches the divinity of the person of Christ who eternally existed before creation.
What you are doing applying 20th century assumptions to a text which has existed for thousands of years. You are trying to make naturalistic materialism to Scripture and not allowing the clear passages of Scripture to tell us what is clearly meant. The text itself tells us what it wants to convery. A day in these chapters is a 24 hour day
Surfxeo 5 months ago
@Surfxeo
I am not doubting that Jesus is indeed God.
I am not saying that the days are not literal, 24 hour days.
Are you ready to start paying attention yet?
AgApE010 5 months ago
@AgApE010 "Jesus quoted from the Psalms, and those weren't always literal."
What about taking Jesus' quote about Jonah non-literally in Matthew 12:40? Did Jesus non-literally rise from the dead as well? How about Luke 11:50-51? Will 'This generation' be responsible for a creation along with an Adam and Eve that didn't literally exist?
How bout one more? Matthew 24:36-40. Is Jesus pretending he isn't endorsing a traditional flood story?
RuinSonic 3 months ago
@RuinSonic
Spouting off random verses where Jesus quoted books literally at face-value doesn't disprove the fact that Jesus quoted other books that were allegorical and/or non-literal. Use logic instead of angrily replying to a comment that might just expand your mind.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 "Spouting off random verses "
Luke 11:50-51 is hardly random in fact it is very relevant. But I suppose you don't care what the Bible actually says. I'm simply taking the Bible at face value. Tell me how you interpret Exodus 20:8-11 where the Israelites are commanded to keep the Sabbath day holy since it was the day God rested?
I think my examples have a solid case against your interpretation. If Jesus took all these myth stories literally, including Adam and Eve, why not the rest?
RuinSonic 3 months ago
@RuinSonic
I don't see your point from the verses in Luke 11. Do you think that I believe that Abel didn't exist? Or that he wasn't murdered by his brother? Stop attacking straw men.
Again, with Exodus 20, you seem to assume that I'm arguing that the days are long periods of time. Stop. Stop trying to argue when you don't even know your opponent's position. You lose a lot of credibility that way.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010
I'm using the Bible to tell how the Bible should be interpreted. You want to pick and choose with the Bible because you recognize science and reason doesn't support a straight forward interpretation. Why should we assume one tale should be considered fact and another one an allegory?
"...days are long periods of time"
You assume too much. I actually wasn't. I've been using the Bible to show the literal interpretation of the bible the whole time. You sir are grabbing straw.
RuinSonic 3 months ago
@RuinSonic
I know my communicating with you at this point will be fruitless insomuch as you are now much too defensive to will to learn anything. So I'll close with recommending you a book on Old Testament theology (tat's not so bad, is it?). "An Old Testament Theology" by Dr. Bruce Waltke is one of the best works out there on the Old Testament. Waltke is a widely recognized scholar. So "love the LORD your God with all your mind" and pick up a copy and learn more about this topic.
Take care.
AgApE010 3 months ago
@AgApE010 "you are now much too defensive to will to learn anything"
O please, I won't let you get away with saying that I misrepresented your views when I'm telling you how the bible goes against your interpretation. I don't have to use direct quotes tailored to your specific view to show you that the bible was interpreted literally. We can go on to church history and on and on. You sir have presented nothing but pick apart everything I said without actually arguing against my point.
RuinSonic 3 months ago
@AgApE010 I'd love to read some of there stuff but there's just so much I need to be reading already. I really don't have a stake in this. But your right about one point. I shouldn't be arguing with someone if I don't know their view. I cannot debate Christians without knowing their whole belief system and worldview because they take 1000 things for granted that I don't. I much rather hear your interpretation of the points I presented and how you view Genesis than try to win an argument.
RuinSonic 3 months ago
Exodus 20:11 The writer of Genesis (Moses, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) tells us again the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days and confirms this by giving us the 4th commandment to keep and santify the Sabbath as the day of rest be God rested on the 7th day from creation.
One more thought. Jesus Christ himself is God from the OT who quotes from Genesis 1,2 & 3 confirming these Scriptural truths are literal. In no way can these texts be construed as flowery poetry.
Surfxeo 5 months ago
@Surfxeo
I think you might have misinterpreted Mr. Wright. Listen to him again?
aloh86 5 months ago
@TheCrookedTimber Amen. I'm tired of fundies telling me I have to choose between science and my faith.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
Try excellent Bible scholars Robert M. Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Valerie Tarico, Gary Greenberg, G.A.Wells, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Albert Schweitzer, Joseph Mccabe, Joseph Wheless. Hector Avalos, Thom Stark, Earl Doherty, Timothy Freke, Barbara Walker, Barbara Thiering, Gerd Ludemann, also Israel Finkelstein, Victor J. Stenger, Richard Carrier, Ken Humphreys
zytigon 6 months ago
You don't find these questions asked in Britain because it's a completely post-Christian culture! Wright is right in saying that the British don't relate moral issues, such as whether or not to murder children, to the Bible. Not surprising that God-hating atheists wouldn't consult God's Word. Their culture is so wicked because they call the Truth a myth so they can feel free to live their vulgar lives. Wierd that Wright believes in the resurrection but not the creation.
slaves4christ 6 months ago
Great thoughts and very well put. Join the emerging discussion at whatthehellbook . com
alyssafaithbaer 6 months ago
@TheCrookedTimber I cannot agree more with this statement!
wbowersox87 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm the discoverer who found the REA:L Garden of Eden. Take a look at my Channel and see if for yourself.
downyourtube 7 months ago
Yet - why does the New testament refer to:
1) Adam and Eve literally (Romans 5:12) - from Paul from a traditional Jewish background; Romans is known to have been a very early writing of the Christian church circa. 50s AD
2) With this in mind - how can evolution be matched with the Biblical teaching of sin entering a perfect world. Entropy does imply the universe is deteriorating 3) and Noah's Flood - that it will be consider myth by future generations (2 Peter 3:3-7)-a common view today?
MrAliyak 7 months ago
@MrAliyak You could take the view of the most respected Medieval Jewish Theologian Maimonides. Maimonides said that Adam was not the first human being, but the first human being to become "man". Meaning, Adam was the first being to recieve the "breath of life" which Maimonides said is the soul. Maimonides says that before Adam, other humans were just like other animals. Anyway, that is just one view. Most ancient theologians instructed their flock not to read Genesis too literally.
AegeanKing 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Look at my videos and see what the atheists don't want you to know. I found the real Garden of Eden using Google Earth. Take a look at my Channel !
downyourtube 7 months ago
quite right, Adam and Eve have nothing to do with modern secular politics.
as a trained classical musician I find Wrights comparisions to Beethoven completely ignorant.
the literal historicity of Adam and Eve is logically crucial to the entire meaning of scripture. If Adam was not literal then christ was not the second Adam
Wright is fudging the issue.
It is history, but he misrepresents a historical reading of it. I dont think well of integrity for so doing
Strefanasha 8 months ago
@Strefanasha His point about "political issues" has to do with the general tendency to lump people into broad categories of "conservatives" and "liberals", categories that span both religious and political parties in America. I know not all conversatives are Young Earth Creationists, but it's still an category-defining issue among many Christians over there, in a way it isn't in Europe.
Hrugnir 7 months ago
I'm one of the people who believe that Genesis means what it says. It says six days because it means six days. It says that death came to the world as a result of man's disobedience because that is what happened. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't also say all of the things N.T. Wright was just saying. The most awesome thing about the Bible is it never stops being new. God wrote it. There are layers and layers and you can study your whole life and still find new things when you read it.
WirtyDord 8 months ago
@WirtyDord You sound a bit ignorant, you are treating the whole Bible as one book when infact it is a library, of 66 (!) books. All of them trying to convey truths in different ways, genres and literature styles, different times and by different authors. Genesis is true, but that doesn't mean that there were a guy named Adam 6000 years ago who ate a fruit from a physical tree and then got to feel of Gods wrath. You are missing the point of Genesis.
thetraceur123 7 months ago
@WirtyDord How does one synthesize scientific truths with a literal reading of the six-days creation account?
wbowersox87 6 months ago
I like NT Wright's insight on how there is a structural framework to the beginning of Genesis, but at the same time there was a heartfelt way of explaining these events that took place. Like adding notes to the staff, there are highs and lows, and even though those highs and lows are not exactly clear, there is still music!!
CountryHoppers 8 months ago
I think Adam and Eve may very well be symbolic for a huge amount of ancient people covering a huge amount of time. Things like talking snakes and magic fruits would be symbolic anywhere else in the Bible. Remember also, that argument that Paul's reasoning demands Adam was the first biological man is based on Augustine's corrections to Paul's difficult words, rather than Paul's words.
Endnuenfyr 8 months ago
Does he think evo is not a big problem in Britian he lives in hos pwn world, Evolution is a big issue in, why is most britians athiest.Also keep in mind N.T. Wright is New testament scholar not a Hebrew scholar.Notice he never here go to the actual scripture,but only superimposes his own view from his alreayd accepted science.His good on Paul,but defenitely doesn't seem good on hebrew.His argument is self refuting,as he hiself says that we should conform genesis to culture?didn't he?
1brandwag 8 months ago
To be more specific rather than mystic, Genesis 8.21 proposes: No more global smiting by God after the Flood. So what is the Rapture about? Why doesn't NT Wright be non-PC and offend the Apocalypticists by citing Gen 8.21?
Or what about the tidal wave verse of Matthew 8.24. Isn't Jesus' response a denial of Apocalypticism, as in His later "God of the Living not Death" rejecting the Secular Imperial death cults of 17BC-70AD?
Remember, Apocalypticism auto-generates if there is mass hopelessness?
cloudbusterman 9 months ago
this bloke is so mature. compare to immaturity displayed fundamentalist Christians in the US, particularly of the Calvinist kind. His comments on the need to decouple issues from one another in America.
brendos444 9 months ago
... are right on. His brilliant reversal of the "conforming to culture" argument was also right on. Little do those US fundamentalists realize that it is their beliefs that are conforming to a view of society that they hold. But not necessarily to the kind of society and values that God wants. They read the Bible so as to conform to their world view, which is usually white, baptist America of the 1950s. I'm astounded at the ignorance of some of these professed Christians.
brendos444 9 months ago
We'll take our bundle and our culture over yours, on it's deathbed, Dr. Wright.
slick222 10 months ago
i like it
taroKID1 10 months ago
intro reminds me of harry potter. lol
taroKID1 10 months ago
The historicity lies in it's mythological symbolism and the mythological symbolism lies in its historicity. That it occurred and that Adam and Eve are very real personages is established by Jesus referring to them as real people. It did happen - but the way in which the ancient story is told is shrouded in deeply symbolic meaning. That does not mean to say it is no less real and actual.
GinaToySculptor 10 months ago
Slick and very dishonest way of deflecting serious scrutiny. All this is, is a view inside one man's very confused head. "The bible isn't meant to be taken literally - but god exists because the bible says so."
What?
You can't just say "Oh it's just a parable everyone!" and then argue FOR god. I mean what the hell is wrong with this guy? Furthermore, what the hell is wrong with the person who forwarded this man to me in some attempt to justify christianity? Christians are 100% retarded.
YourBrainOnReligion 10 months ago
@YourBrainOnReligion If you took time to read wright i think you'd find he is an extremely intelligent man and a scholar of the highest calibre. This doesnt mean he's right (maybe he is N.T. Wrong :)) but you cant brush him aside like that. Its the equivalent of a christian brushing dawkins aside as a mentalist because they dont agree with his conclusions.
wottsy2000 9 months ago
Slippy441: "Inbreeding," huh? Well, I wouldn't touch that comment with a barge pole, but it sure is tempting...
billybagbom 11 months ago
The mental gymnastics required, to make sense, of what is obviously outdated Bronze Age horseshit, is astounding. Don't you love it when people like this, talk in a measured, breathy, semi-rational voice, propounding sincerity, whilst actaually operating in complete delusion. What a laugh. Dream on, buddy, dream on.
evidenceonlythanx 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
slippy441: Pretty good at beating up on "ignorant evangelicals," aren't you? How about giving us your statement of faith? What do you believe? "You can't start a species with two individuals"? What lab has produced that breathtaking result? I don't want a "consensus"; I want an experiment that confirmed this particular hypothesis. Oh, yeah: And "Eve"? She's my ancestor, common though I may be.
billybagbom 11 months ago
slippy441: Pretty good at beating up on "ignorant evangelicals," aren't you? How about giving us your statement of aith? What do you believe? "You can't start a species with two individuals"? What lab has produced that breathtaking result? I don't want a "consensus"; I want an experiment that confirmed this particular hypothesis. Oh, yeah: And "Eve"? She's my ancestor, common though I may be.
billybagbom 11 months ago
@billybagbom You got to be kidding me! You think it takes a lab to determine that you cant start a species from 2 individuals? And that it would be a "breakthrough"?? Fucking retard religious fanatics... Why is all this NEW information to you? I cant post links obviously by try actually searching for that answer. Just google "inbreeding" and find the hundreds of experiments from the past century showing why it doesnt work. Yeah, we've known this for over 100yrs but you idiots choose not to read.
slippy441 11 months ago
@billybagbom Heres another "groundbreaking discovery" that you should have learned in middleschool......The Earth is round!
slippy441 11 months ago
Literalism, I would also add, limits the imaginative nature of mankind. This is an art that has been lost in America.
Just a thought.
DanPrinMan 1 year ago
His statements on myth are accurate. Some have taken the myth word to mean some sort of derogatory untruth. An excellent book on this topic is Myth Conceptions by Tom Snyder. We too often take the bait tossed by skeptics without stepping back and dialoging in a more intelligent manner...study to show thyself approved...
flash91214 1 year ago
Finally someone in a position of religious authority says these things out loud.
Hufflewaffle 1 year ago
We need to get this more views.
Time to spam.
jshjamaar 1 year ago
@jshjamaar
tempting but no.
do forward it to your friends though.
ivlfounder 1 year ago
Can we somehow make this required viewing for Christians in America?
ourgenerationisdumb 1 year ago 29
some readings are made to order for symbolic reading...most of the bible is that way...to include much of Revelation. if you don't interpret them more deeply, you miss the deeper meanings.
jhgosnell 1 year ago
Christians moving away from literalism is a start in the right direction. Then comes theism, and later atheism. Good work biologos :)
imaginenoreligion 1 year ago
So if Adam and Eve were the first people....who did their kids have sex with? Eachother? The parents? This is a pretty sick story guys!
slippy441 1 year ago
@slippy441 If they did, at the time, there was no law against it. So it actually wasn't sick yet.
MayonR 1 year ago
@MayonR Laws dont make things sick. Its fucking sick even if it was legal lol. Are you telling me that having sex with your parents or siblings isnt OK just because its illegal? You have major problems my friend....
Its simple: The writers of the bible didnt think beyond the first generation and peobably never intended people 2000yrs later to think it was true. But SURE ENOUGH we have idiots now that do just that.
slippy441 1 year ago
@slippy441 Play the game, "If you were the last two people on earth would you mate with,(blank). You'll be surprised what people say when put in that context. Of course it's sick, but your thinking within the context of your little world. [[The writers of the bible didnt think beyond the first generation and peobably never intended people 2000yrs later to think it was true.]] So they just got together and were just making episodes like Seinfeld.Get your info on Zeitgeist?
MayonR 1 year ago
@MayonR Yep, and if that heppened, the species would be doomed. No matter how OK you were with it. Do you somehow have zero knowledge of genetics and think that you can start a species from 2 individuals? You cant. You inbreed in ONE generation and you cant continue a species that way. Its not my "little world" do some research on inbreeding. Cheetas for example are having problems because their population necked down to 14 individuals in the past. Starting over from14 is bad 2 is DOOM!
slippy441 1 year ago
@slippy441 Mainly i was addressing the philosophical part of it in the ancient scenario.Because you thought it was sick remember? So in that case whatever transpired wouldn't be as sick since it was necessary.It is sick today, and that is what you are used to and basing it on. Even genetics has traced all of us to a common source. So it would not be a shallow gene pool like a cheetah but all the traits we have today. An uncorrupted gene pool.
MayonR 1 year ago
@MayonR It is sick and for good reason. You dont think so?
Guess what?! Being able to trace a species back to one individual doesnt mean a genetic bottleneck. It just means we are related to that one individual. I can trace 30 family members back to one great great grandmother and that doesnt mean there was JUST my great great grandmother and her husband on earth. Unrelated genes are essential to a species surviving. The human mitochondrial eve was aruond before there were even races of people
slippy441 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@slippy441 [[It is sick and for good reason. You dont think so?]] Of course I do. Assuming it did happen that way, it might make us blush but they wouldn't have thought it sick at the time.[[I can trace 30 family members back to one great great grandmother and that doesnt mean there wa]] Sure there are many theories surrounding it, but it still is a profound move towards the Biblical account, not away from it.
MayonR 1 year ago
@slippy441 [[It is sick and for good reason. You dont think so?]] Of course i do. Assuming it did happen, I would guess it was not sick to them, not being conditioned by moral law or knowing anything else. [[I can trace 30 family members ba]] There are many hypothesis, but one thing is for sure. It is a profound move towards the Biblical account than against it.
MayonR 1 year ago
@MayonR You're not getting it. It doesnt matter how they felt about incest. Its FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE to start a new species from just 2 individuals. I thought I covered that... Inbreeding isnt just bad because of the way we feel about it. Incest is a short road to extinction. In short, Adam and Eve starting the human species is impossible like most of the stories in the bible. Too bad you slept through biology class.
slippy441 1 year ago
@slippy441 As if I'm not getting it. As if I made up all these theories all by myself, like I know you didn't. As there are no Christian professionals,no scholars, there is not one Christian Scientist, there are no Christian biologist or any other profession because all of them are preachers. Get out of your little world once in awhile and quit making it so personal. It's not about me or you, it's one of the most deeply debated subjects in humanity. And it's still going.
MayonR 1 year ago
@MayonR I know there are Christian biologists, but they all support evolution. As do all geneticists. Biology and genetics make no sense at all without evolution, and that as factual as it gets.
SO what theories am I claiming that you "made up all by yourself"? You presented no theories. .
slippy441 1 year ago
@slippy441 I wonder if you can go back and see some of the answers I give to these recurring questions. If you don't see them ask away. I gave the hypothesis covering incest, and the gene pool. Didn't say you would agree and don't doubt you will contend. The Bible leaves all these scenarios open and even the science behind this is changing as they confirm the mutation rate. Another thing you must remember is it traces it back to a common ancestor which could be after Eve.
MayonR 1 year ago
@MayonR The hypothesis that you covered was "they didnt think it was ad back then" and that doesnt matter. You seem to be ignoring the fact that YOU CANT START A SPECIES WITH 2 INDIVIDUALS!!!! No matter what.
And what would Eve e a common ancestor of?...You dont know what a common ancestor is do you? I'll give you an example: Wolves are the common ancestor of pit bulls and miniature poodles. So how is eve a "common ancestor" again?
slippy441 1 year ago
@slippy441 So our DNA couldn't have been different? How many Smart Apes climbed out of the soup to populate the Earth? Or was it God aliens?
b29349 11 months ago
@b29349 Could our DNA have been different? LOL no! Inbreeding doesnt work and is a hole in the plot of the bible story that you think is real. They wouldnt be our ancestors if they had different DNA. Do you know what DNA is? What are you talking about with the "smart apes crawling out of soup" thing?? Are you just really really bad a science and think thats what evolution is??
slippy441 11 months ago
@slippy441 Change the Earth's magnetic and gravationally fields and DNA will be different. Yes, in med school I learned what DNA is. Evolution.
b29349 11 months ago
@b29349 LOLOL WHAT??? Uh NO. Gravity and magnitism have no effect on DNA, retard. You never went to med school obviously- you would be a bit more educated.
Try wikipedia, it will help ypu atleast know what the words mean.
slippy441 11 months ago
'nice' diatribe..too bad it's irrational(Genesis 1-3 is either historical narative or myth...stop dancing around the issue)
martalog121 1 year ago
The Creation myths are commentaries, inter alia, on the parallel Creation myth of Homer/Theogeny where the Original Sin/Crime is a treason cutting off the Testimonials of Heaven with a sickle (secula L), also called No Magisteria (NOMA) and Gould's NOMA-hood.
Figuratively, element heaven (mostly dynamic logic) went, as did afterlife Heaven, the Bible, mono-theism, and so on. The ancients called this Titan coup "Secular", a word with unchanged meaning. Testimonials later included Gospel and Jews
cloudbusterman 1 year ago
Here is a great video explaining the Mythicist Position
watch?v=YKW9sbJ3v2w
Hercules2345 1 year ago
He's hit the nail right on the head! Moses wasn't writing a science textbook or an entry for The Times! He was doing something different. Creationists completely miss the point. The confusion stems from us, not from the Bible.
AchillesShield 1 year ago
His Apostasy flows from his mouth, do not believe him or others who speak such heresy! God set the example for us in Creating in six literal days and resting the seventh! How could plants made on day 3, that need birds made on day 5 to pollinate them survive if each day was thousand's or millions of years? The Day-Age theory tries to compromise between a literal rendering of Scripture and atheistic philosophies about the past that deny a Creator! Some people are just plainly willingly ignorant!
mikeeboy1000 1 year ago
@mikeeboy1000 I don't believe you're actually hearing what he is saying.
xxpowwowbluexx 1 year ago
Jesus' teaching tool of choice was parables. Is it unrealistic that God might have used allegory elsewhere to convey life's most important concepts? I find the idea that Genesis is allegorical—packed with divine founts of wisdom tucked cleverly beneath the surface—so faith-building. We invite trouble when we demote Genesis to nothing more than a science or history book (it is much more valuable than that)!
I *highly* recommend "The Beginning of Wisdom" by Leon Kass.
jarklejam 1 year ago
@jarklejam "Jesus' teaching tool of choice was parables."
no to teach but to confuse most of His audience!
martalog121 1 year ago
@martalog121
Confusion maybe the fault of those who receive the message...
regelemihai 1 year ago
@regelemihai
No,they were kept confused by God !!!
Matt. 13:10-12 Luke 8:10 John 16:29
martalog121 1 year ago
Unfair to the text? The text says a talking snake conned a woman into eating fruit.
Thoughtland 1 year ago
haha
jordanherzog 1 year ago
I find it interesting that N.T. Wright assumes that everyone who believes in 6-day creation (like myself) has that dualistic view of end times and disagrees with the "big picture" of Genesis being about God creating the heavens and the earth to be His dwelling place, and creating man to share it with. I agree with all of that, but I still think that God did make the earth in 6 days and that Adam and Eve were historical people (which most Christians throughout history have believed as well).
MartinLuther2nd 1 year ago 2
Martin it's sometimes called "argumentum ad hominem" I experienced the same approach used with a prof. of law. I was holding to 2 Pet.3 eschatology "new heaven and earth" he was trying to defend traditional "no new earth" theology. Claimed those who hold to 2 Pet.3 held it for "carnal" reasons "at least we'll still be able to play golf" after the parousia etc.
fightintheshade 1 year ago
I pointed out this weak approach to debate (used by Tom here) my friend was embarrassed acknowledged the weakness of his approach. Apologised and we moved on.
fightintheshade 1 year ago
@fightintheshade Wright is not attempting to debate here. He recognizes the difference between scholarly debate and summary and presentation of material on basic levels for the everyday person. Here he is simply telling a 'story' so to speak and not endeavoring to defend it. If you have an itch to engage him in scholarly debate pick up his "Christian Origins and the Question of God" volumes.
xxpowwowbluexx 1 year ago
@xxpowwowbluexx - pure semantics OK he is simply telling an ad hominem " story" e.g. creationists say "I'm not going to study the text, I'm just going to flattening it out so it conforms to the culture questions my culture today is telling me to ask, I think that's a form of being unfaithful to the text itself". Tom's ad hominem "story telling" isn't the crime of the century but it's a bit cheeky, andpoints to weakness in "his story line". Not sure why you think I've an itch to debate the man?
fightintheshade 1 year ago
If God can make water flow from a rock, part the Red Sea (with a WALL of water on each side) and have the Israelites walk on DRY ground, rain manna (the bread of angels) from heaven in the Israelites camp, cause Nebuchadnezzar to have the mind of an animal for 7 yrs and eat grass like the cattle of the field, raise Jesus from the dead and cause sinners, like you and me, to be saved by grace - SURELY He can create the world in 6 days...can't He? Yes, I do believe in Adam & Eve as literal too.
truebluewitness 1 year ago
@truebluewitness I understand your sentiments. I used to argue for a strict literal reading. Now, I truly believe that a literal reading sells God's message short. The point is that *God created the universe.* He did! Yet, it seems that God might be trying to tell us something much more important to our souls than "here is what I did, 1-6."
I believe that the entire science vs. scripture debate is a distraction, cunningly crafted by Satan himself. We're missing the point when we go there!
jarklejam 1 year ago
@truebluewitness Of course God could create the world in 6 days, I don't think any Christian would argue with you there. The question is if He did, if the Bible says that He did, and whether or not the world seems like it was created in massively compressed chunks or time, or not.
Personally, I find it weird to think God was in such a hurry to get everything ready in 6 days, and then took 1000's of years during salvation history (to this day), and spent 30/33 of His earthly life as a carpenter.
Hrugnir 1 year ago
@Hrugnir That is, Jesus spent the first 30 years of His life without doing any "ministry". He took his sweet time. Even during His ministry, He was pretty ineffective by human standards. Kept walking away when they wanted to make Him king, and when masses gathered, he offended them with radical teachings rather than trying to gather the masses.
Something tells me God is more subtle and ingenius in showing his glory than doing it by finishing his art class assignment faster than anyone else.
Hrugnir 1 year ago
@Hrugnir No where in the Bible does it says Jesus spent his life as a carpenter... Show my a scripture in full context in which it says Jesus himself was a carpenter. I do know it says his earthy step-father Joseph was a carpenter. I can show you where Jesus was preaching at the age of twelve.
stevelovesgod 1 year ago
@stevelovesgod
I don't know if he did spend his working life as a carpenter, but all the Temple event suggests is a growing awareness in Jesus of his vocation. The gaping silence between birth and baptism in most gospels make it pretty clear that Jesus was pretty laid back until the time was right. I'm not saying he was lazy, I'm saying that knew how to be a true human being. That's what Jesus came to do - to save humanity. So he lived humanly, not super-humanly.
Hrugnir 1 year ago
Amen, Mr. Wright!
riardd 1 year ago 6
I really like cheddar cheese.
ScottLamber 1 year ago
Genesis is not a piece of art, open to all to see it however they please, in whatever manner is most beneficial to their relative interests. Genesis itself is an interpretation, given by God, of a piece of what can arguably be seen (at the very least) as art, which is creation.
To compare it to a symphony or play is to clearly express your doubt of the validity of its intended meaning, but to supplement your own so as not to call it a lie.
God commands we walk by faith, not by sight.
waluum 1 year ago
Wow. I haven't heard anyone interpret Genesis as being for the Jewish people because that's the way tabernacles were supposed to be built. That's pretty cool. (won't touch the furious youtube debate) Good video.
ChanimalCrackers 1 year ago
So does the Norse story of Odin, Hoenir, and Lodur creating mankind from a pair of trees deserve the same kind of deeper textual analysis? Did you read that one for all it's worth? By what criteria is your myth superior? Clearly you think it is or else you wouldn't be Christian.
RichardMNixon 1 year ago
@RichardMNixon We're Christian because of Christ. Christ is our starting point, not Adam. It is Christ who described the Old Testament as authoritative, therefore whatever "myths" (if they really are myths) they may contain are authoritative as descriptions of God's character, His relationship with us, etc. etc... One theologian puts it this way, "We do not believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible; we believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ.".
glorban 1 year ago
@glorban
And yet your only source of information about Christ is the Bible, that's why these "is the Bible true" questions are an issue. If you can't believe the Bible, how can you believe in Christ?
RichardMNixon 1 year ago
@RichardMNixon Only source? what about almost 2000 years of Church history and tradition, what about the early patristic writings and those of the apologists, what about the later 'gnostic' interpretations of Jesus?
wottsy2000 1 year ago
Again, you're still reading things about Christ and then worshiping him, so what glorban said is still either false or circular. I've listened to modern apologists, it's a very well connotated word. They're apologizing for the failures of their beliefs.
If you'd like to impress me, find a contemporary, extrabiblical source giving definitive evidence that Jesus existed, not just a bunch of stories his worshipers wrote 100+ years later.
RichardMNixon 1 year ago
@RichardMNixon I can speak from personal experience and on behalf of others, for whom worship of Christ is not practiced as a result of evidence provided in scriptures. I stand with Glorban in asserting that we are Christian because of our experience of Christ. Contra Glorban, I would suggest that this does not lead us to awknowledge the truth of scripture, and that as Christians, Christ should be our hermeneutic when reading scripture.
wottsy2000 1 year ago
Connotation is a secondary meaning.
So you're saying Christ appeared to you? Why has he not appeared to >95% of Japan? Does he love them less than he loves white people? Why is it a miracle when Christ appears to someone, and a mental illness when someone else does? Do you think followers of other religions are lying about their figures coming to them? Subjective anecdotes won't convince me.
The NT was all written at least decades after the crucifixion, I'd like something contemporary.
RichardMNixon 1 year ago
@RichardMNixon Also, your etymology is a little anachronistic. our word Apologetics comes from the greek word apologia. Originally an 'apology' was a structured defense of ones position on a matter. Im not trying to impress you, but would like to know why you need 'extrabiblical' sources, bearing in mind that 'biblical' is a term coined long after the canonical scriptures were complete.
wottsy2000 1 year ago
Brilliant. Need to listen to it a few times to unpack some of what he is saying here. It saddens me that so many wish to reduce the rich tapestry of Genesis to a simplistic scientific document. God's theological intent is primary and, it seems to me, the Glory is lost in the secondary [mis]uses of the text.
bradburman 1 year ago