N.T. Wright and Pete Enns: What Do You Mean by Literal?

[norwayguy1976]

I believe in two contradictary things. One: I believe that we can use as much as we can from science and evolution, except of the creation of humans, which must have been done directly. And number two: To not take anything away, or add anything. A type of poetic creation, poetic truth a la C.S. Lewis (as video mentioned about the Parables, it makes no sense to discuss the details, open for the risk of fairy tales).

[timtekron]

Ironically, Mike Licona endorses this video to support his hermeneutic. But, what needs to be understood is that both Enns and Wright publically speak against the inerrancy of Scripture. While they both have academic respect, they also have drifted away from an evangelical understanding of the full inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture.

[orlando098]

I'd say this answer is as slippery as a politician's who doesn't want to give a straight answer, and that it strikes me as a typical theologian's tactic to start analysing the language of the words in the question rather than answering it. "Do you take the gospels literally?" "I want to say the world literal is confusing.... (waffles for four minutes). No it isn't, it's a perfectly normal English word which we all understand.

[orlando098]

What a bunch of waffle; he totally avoids the question, which is: what is his justification for saying Genesis is poetic writing to be interpreted symbolically (God didn't create the world in 6 days and place Adam and Eve in it, it's just a metaphor for his close relationship to the world), but everything in the New Testament is factual (Jesus rose from the dead and ascended and will come back as judge and raise the dead and create a new Earth) and people who disagree are wrong.

[flash91214]

The world crumbles, economic collapses, environment degrades, the poor die from starvation and still we stay up late wondering if the creation is literal 24 hours. Even St Augustine doubted whether the Genesis account neede to taken from a literalist timeframe,,,NTanswers the question well.

[TheMichael197513]

Wright makes a very informative point as always!

[scifiwritir1]

Give 'em an inch, N.T., and they'll take a mile!

[mkblankenship7]

They had Moses and the Prophets, which was all they needed to know Christ. This was no parable, but stated the truth that the hearers had the Law and Gospel previously proclaimed to them. Perhaps the Very Reverend, Right Reverend etc. C of E "scholar" should mind his exegesis a little more closely.

[dragondoubt]

The Book of Acts presents the Bereans in chapter 17 as a people who constantly sought the truth about what Paul had to say about the scriptures. We, too, should be as conscientious to find that truth so that we are not led astray by the idle philosophy and vain deceit no matter what the source.

[zappo1355]

Yes, E.E. & Genesis contain beautiful symbolism, but that doesn't mean they are not also wrong about the way the world is. The texts can be poetic, and mistaken. They just can't allow themselves to acknowledge that Genesis isn't the product of omniscience.

[zappo1355]

Good God... Imagine some apologist for Babylonian religion sitting down with the Enuma Elish, and saying, "well, it would be wrong to think that the author wanted us to think Marduk was really battling Tiamat, or that the Earth was really a flat-disk or the skies held back water... its so much more sophisticated than that."

[EricOneOneNine]

@zappo1355

If that apologist can make a good case, then so be it.

[johncalvinhall]

Colossians 2:8 - Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Why am I not surprised that they would invite the likes of NT Wright as their latest poster child? It took him 3-4 minutes just to say, "no?"

[TerraFirma92]

@johncalvinhall

John,

Obviously during interviews most questions are to be elaborated on. He didn't want to answer the question with a simple "no" because it seems he thought that it would be blurring important distinctions-- in this case its the way the Genesis texts are looked upon on the outset as either "literal" or "metaphorical".

Furthermore you simply quote a passage from scripture without giving us any reason why what Tom is saying classifies as vain and deceitful philosophy.

[TerraFirma92]

@johncalvinhall

Moreover there is also good Christian philosophy and tradition...So unless you demonstrate that his is "bad" and that the initial people who wrote Genesis intended it to be an account of literal cosmological and biological events, then your statement is reduced to a baseless assertion.

[norwayguy1976]

@TerraFirma92 @TerraFirma92 Greetings. But God himself wrote on the tables of Moses: "On six days I created the earth". What do we do with the tables. Genesis is not the only account of the "six days". Yet I remember a mystic. I reject intelligent design and fundamentalism as fairy tales. But I maintain a conservative mysticist: I do not understand it. I cannot add anyting, I cannot take anything away.

[iToyRobot]

great video

[AustinD88]

Well said...