N.T. Wright on Adam and Eve
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 січ 2010
- The conversation continues at www.biologos.org...
Bishop of Durham and leading New Testament scholar N.T. Wright offers his thoughts on how we should read the first two chapters of Genesis, and why myth does not mean the same thing as "not true".
My question to anyone who reasons that a literal Adam and Eve aren’t necessary to understanding the “real” meaning of Genesis is this: the New Testament provides the lineage of Jesus going right back to Adam. At what point does Jesus’ lineage become figurative or allegorical?
@@josephpchajek2685Answer my question about the literal lineage of Jesus.
Genesis is not about what's true, but what is truth. If the bible was a science book, it would have been discarded thousands of years ago, but it's something more, that's why it's still relevant today.
+protochris We have hundreds of dating methods that indicate a young Earth and young Universe and only a handful of dating methods that seem to indicate an old Earth and old Universe. My background is in science, and I choose to follow the data.
Also, the Gospels teach that Adam was a real person, should we take the Gospels as a myth?
Adam was a real person, because the Bible is about God and man. I just don't think the creation account is required to be a scientific explanation. If it was a science book, people would get distracted from the true message.
+GreenSlugg Explain starlight
protochris It claims to be a history book.
LogosTheos Dr. Jason Lisle has some pretty good talks on that topic. You can also check out BlueSlugg.com and GreenSlugg.com for more info on questions like that.
But you can't use distant starlight as evidence against a Young Universe, beccause the Big Bang also has it's own equivalent of the distant starlight problem. But I could just as well sit here and say "explain spiral galaxies".
I agree that we need to analyse the meaning of the text, but I still think we should interpret Adam and Eve literally, otherwise everything else doesn't make sense!
No, we're interpreting literally a book the writer and the Hebrew culture knew was truth presented as symbol, but still truth. The gospels, though, are historical accounts, and are truth also.
@@nmoriss This is cringe bro
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression who is the figure of Him that was to come. Rm 5.14 Adam was created in the image and after the likeness of God as He would appear in human form, Jesus of Nazareth.
Yes it does make sense, you dont understand Hebrew narrative, study it as function not history, this is not a historical text
Well, whatever the theological arguments or otherwise, the one thing that I know is that God changes the lives of those who repent and believe in Jesus!
I love the fly on the screen in the background! lol!
😂😂😂
Hahaha
I didn't think flies were interested in the topic.
Wright says, "I do think it matters that something like a primal pair getting it wrong did happen." Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the historicity of the fall of Adam and Eve. I'm amazed that someone with Wright's reputation for Christian orthodoxy would use such weaselly and equivocating language to describe an episode of Biblical history that is so fundamentally crucial to Christian theology.
So true, he is being swayed by popular thinking on Genesis, instead of standing for the truth of the text, which is clear in the rest of the OT and the whole of the NT.
Having open and thoughtful discussions is good! But I don't think this is what is happening here. Here's my takeaway, sad as it is.
"I want a nuanced and thoughtful view of the text that doesn't force false dichotomies or cause us to assume that one interpretational point forces a whole worldview on me. To defend this position I will characterize those who disagree with my nuance as having no nuance of their own. I'll represent them as foolish thinkers who are themselves pushed into one side of my own false dichotomy. I will assume that if they make one interpretation all point (6 day creation or literal Adam and Eve) that they automatically represent a shallow worldview and eschatology."
It comes off as hypocritically painting other with the brush you deny them.
He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, - Matthew 19:4
The authors of the New Testament were Jewish to the bone, and they would have soaked themselves in the scriptures and knew the stories like the back of their hand. Of course they would describe “the beginning” in no other way than how it is in Genesis, because it’s their story, their beginning.
@@kylebarney3126 They also understood the symbolism and how it still reflects truth and would not have fallen into the literalism trap.
@@Himmiefan No they wouldn't. They would read the text as a historical narrative, which is what it is
@@kylebarney3126 I'm pretty sure Luke was not Jewish to the bone, he was a Gentile. But even so, the writer (inspired by the Holy Spirit) was quoting Jesus. Are you suggesting that Jesus was missing something in his understanding of how it is written in Genesis?
It is helpful to see Genesis in light of Revelation and the symbolic communication of that book. Paradise lost, paradise gained...
That's prophecy, a completely different genre.
@@dahelmang Even then, there has to be a connection between the two, if we are to claim all scripture is the living word of GOD inspired by the holy spirit. Isn't it in the book of Genesis we see the "prophecy of the serpent biting the man, while He tramples it", showing a representation of Jesus' triumph over the devil
@@emmanueloluga9770 what N T Wright is suggesting is that Genesis is a myth. That is clearly not how the rest of Scripture treats it. Revelation is prophecy, so you expect to see metaphors there, it's a different genre.
@@dahelmang oh OK, I get your point now. Also, I don't think he sees it as a myth in the traditional sense, more like an allegory (even then , I believe he is wrong as other scholars have asserted)
@@emmanueloluga9770 from the videos I have seen he compares it to pagan creation myths. He says every myth carries a message, so it's like a parable.
you cannot separate a function creation or a material creation. That separtion is modern
Literalism, I would also add, limits the imaginative nature of mankind. This is an art that has been lost in America.
Just a thought.
@New Eyes To See He's not particularly liberal.
@New Eyes To See This is one thing that frustrates me about much of American Christianity: this odd obsession with just tossing the label "Liberal" around at Christians whose Theology and Political Engagement don't look *exactly* like Conservative American Christianity. Yes, it is true that Liberal Christians believe that the Genesis Creation Account is not to be interpreted literally, but that doesn't mean the idea, itself, is "Liberal." It is a view waaaay older than modern Liberal Politics/Theology. In fact, I'd argue this "radical literalist Christianity" is, itself "liberal" in that it is not *Traditional*. While, yes, you have had some Christians throughout history who have believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis, the broader Church, between the Ascension of Christ and the Protestant Reformation did not take dogmatic positions on this, and certainly didn't view it as a topic that has bearing on one's Salvation. The Early Church of the first couple centuries was more preoccupied with what the *message* of Genesis was (which is: a testimony of the character of God, His relationship with Man, and Man's relationship with sin) to consider and view the book as some sort of "science textbook."
It wasn't until just the last 100 years that Christian Fundamentalists reacted (and I would argue OVER-reacted) against Modernist Rationalism by enforcing a view of Literal interpretation and Biblical inerrancy and basically just stopped short of saying belief in both was necessary for Salvation (some even went as far as saying just that, which is absolutely sacrilegious against the Death and Resurrection of Christ). So in the grand scheme of things, this "literalist radicalization" was a fairly "liberal" movement ("liberal" in that it was a fairly new view being pushed, contrasting with a more "conservative" position of holding the interpretation of Genesis in an "open palm" instead of being dogmatic).
None of this is to say that I don't think anyone should hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis, or Biblical inerrancy, that's fine if you do. But my problem is when these views are pushed as "This is what the Church has always affirmed!" when that's just not entirely true.
Also frustrating is the fact that I KNOW (because I used to be in the same boat) that Conservative Literalist Christians have been basically "trained" to view stuff like what I'm saying as just "Liberal theology propaganda" that Liberals use to sow confusion and doubt. That is exactly how I would've responded to my own comment above just a few years ago. And that's frustrating because there's a *discussion* worth having here. But it's not going to get very far if Literalists have been primed to immediately go on the defensive because any "evidence" that their view is wrong is just the Enemy using "evil liberal propaganda" to destroy your Faith.
I know all too well there's no easy way to "break through" that wall. But I'll just say that, in my own case, it took researching Church History itself. And I don't mean going and reading modern books written by Conservative Theologians or Liberal Theologians who are "cherry-picking" Church events, fathers, and letters that support their view. Rather, I mean going TO THE SOURCES. Read the writings of the Early Christians themselves. Read about the Seven Ecumenical Church Councils. Read the letters that were in circulation about the Bible. You'll find that the Church, largely, really did not take a dogmatic position on this question of Genesis's interpretation. Some Christians thought it was literal, others thought it was just symbolic. And yet neither side felt the need to assault and question the Faith of the other; heck they didn't even *split* into "sides" on this issue. Because, like I said, they really didn't even get hung up on the question. They focused on the message it was relaying.
That's a lot of what N.T. Wright is getting at when he talks about "Western mindset" or "American mindset" or "that's an American thing." Our culture is a HIGHLY "rationalistic" culture. We want CERTAINTY. Want to KNOW. We want all the intrinsic details on everything. And yet, that just wasn't the case with the Eastern world (where Christianity was born). Rather it's a relatively new mindset that's very much tied into Greek Philosophy that developed in the middle ages and influenced Western culture.
@@SolaScripturaMan what’s wrong with believing the Bible is inerrant? I’m genuinely curious how you came to that conclusion. If it’s not the actual word of our LORD then what value does it truly have to us?
@@Yela927 it is not the word of God itself,, it contains the word of God, which is seen at its fullest in the life, teachings, death & resurection of Jesus as Christ. Stories, tales, poetry & even sometimes historical narrative are all vehicles for the Word, not the Word itself. Jesus spoke in parables not in scientifically varifiable facts.
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
4After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
5Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died. Genesis 5: 3-5 If Adam was not a literal person why does God go out of his way to give us this detail.
I appreciate you telling me what I don't understand. I understand quite well that the Bible was written by men. Men chosen by God and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Think about this what is the primary way God has communicated to man over the last 2000 years that is by his written word. Do you think God would entrust such an important thing to hoping men get it right. I think not I believe his guiding hand is on his message at all times sure there are small variations in different translations but the message is the same. I believe his word is alive and it does His work and is in no way a creation of man or dependent on his interpretation.
Yes he does allow people to make mistakes but I am more than sure the one thing he does not leave up to fallible man is his truth. Can you imagine God saying I really wished they had written that verse different it doesn't convey what I meant.
OK this is getting boring and you obviously aren't getting the point. You keep saying that man wrought the bible and that man is fallible and I guess your saying we can't take the bible literal or something. All I am saying is the bible is God's word it was written exactly how he wanted it written and he upholds its authenticity to this day. And yes whatever is true is God's truth way to argue a point I wasn't even debating.
I think there is a lot of weak scholarship out there. A lot of cherry picking of verses and "saying see what about this" as you have done. The problem is you have to put those verses in the context of the day and second you have reconcile the difference between the Old and New Covenant which does if fact change the way we are to respond to acts of sin. God did in fact have a literal law in the Old Testament that did apply to the Jewish people (only) such as you describe Deuteronomy 21:18-21 for the context and a better understanding of the reasoning see the link here www.gotquestions.org/stone-rebellious-children.html. As to how should we act today see Galatians 3:23-25 Hebrews 8:13 Romans 7:6 these verses and many others talk about the fulfillment of the law by Christ and that we are no longer slaves to the law which required harsh punishment to save the Jewish people from themselves and their enemies. Do I understand God's reasoning on everything NO how could I or anyone else, but I do not presume that I know better than God which leads to, "well I like this part of the bible and I will take that literal, this other part I don't like so I won't."
Anyone that believes that stoning is an appropriate punishment for sin TODAY is woefully uneducated in Christianity and is most likely using it as an excuse to commit their own evil intentions.
Where is the music from
This was a super thought provoking video, though I still don't know what to think about Adam and Eve. You've shown me I wasn't thinking enough! XD
@ΝαζωραῖοςI agree
The reason I never believed in Evolution was because Adam could not find a Mate... God had to create a woman for him... If Adam and Eve where one in a group of 1000's why did the narrator tell us no mate was found for him out of all the animals? and Genealogy.
And the second creation of Jesus was he himself was an event Horizon given he went from a dead body into a billion blasts of light that today only a nuclear bomb could copy, he created in an instant a new man... I mean a billionth of a second. God does not need time things didn't have to grow.. they just came into being by his word.. because Nothing existed not a single thing everything created came to be by his word.. But the argument is distracting from the true meaning of Life to Love and serve.
One of the first and most important rules of Scriptural interpretation is to correctly identify the literary genre of a given text. The Bible isn't so much a book as it is a library of books drawn together and sandwiched between two covers. In this Holy Library are various kinds of literary genres: songs and poetry, historical narratives, philosophical musings, biography, travelogue, dissertations, and - yes - myth. The first chapters of Genesis are clearly intended to be read as epic myth. Genesis 1 in fact is a brilliantly composed epic poem - not a scientific dissertation. Those Christians who insist on a clumsy literalism here are robbing themselves of the true power, and true meaning, of God's word.
I don't see why it follows that we must think the six days of creation might not have been literal just because we grasp that the creation story tells us that God wants to fellowship with man
I agree and would add that creating a bogeyman (cloud sitting harpist view of the new creation and new earth) doesn't in any way undermine your point that God could in 7 days create a temple in which his people will glorify and enjoy him forever. Holding such an interpretation of Gen.1-3 can (and in my view should) be combined with an equally rich understanding of the glory of the world to come when God's people will see him face to face in a renewed creation (to the extent that it is possible for creatures to know and understand the Creator). NT Wright is correct, though, to warn of the danger of people misrepresenting your belief especially in a society which sees everything in terms of politics. Since he spoke (in 2010) the cultural wars in the US, which he referred to, have ignited in the UK causing a similar level of strife and conflict.
NTW's definition of myth sounds strangely Bultmannian.
with respect to your claim, can you provide any book or article. even iam curious.
Am I correct in thinking that this was just one long sentence?
And all to tell us the plain sense isn't the real meaning at all, and he reckons we should all be too sophisticated to accept God's word as God's word.
Who was it who first asked "hath God said"?
A very clever man but a complete waffler.
@@briancarson6761 If you are talking about N.T. Wright, I agree
Guess I got bored too soon....never heard him mention Adam....or Eve.
What works in particular are you referring to?
@alastairblakepeters what book?
1:43 "Genesis is like a Shakespeare play or a Beethoven Symphony". It's all myth. Why then not the whole rest of the Bible? "The six days of creation simply describe how you make a temple, a tabernacle," And these are the words of a Bishop and a leading NT scholar. No wonder why the church is in such disarray now a days.
Because scholars recognize that the Bible is a mixture of history, poems, and parables.
I am trying to figure out why they think God couldn't do this in six days. I can not understand how a preacher doubts God's ability to create the universe and all in it and doubt the time frame of 6 days. When the Bible says God spoke things into existence i believe it. I just can't imagine God creating dirt and then moving it around with a shovel.
@@davidprice9792 It's called evidence. Nothing to do with whether God could or couldn't. There is no scientific basis for the six day of creation whatsoever.
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.
When would you use the word myth to describe something that actually happened?
The American Foundation Myth.
I would like to know what you think about my interpretation. You can find it in the comments here.
2:37 He's completely right about _myth_ being a loaded term. The word I prefer is _allegory_
*allegory* ∙ NOUN
Pronunciation /ˈaləˌɡôrē/ /ˈæləˌɡɔri/
1. A story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
2. The expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence
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!!
What hermeneutical principles does NT Wright use? We need to look at the Context, original languages, word study, how it's used throughout the Bible, grammatical structure, historical and cultural background, figurative language and application. (McQuilkin. Understanding and Applying the Bible.) The principles suggested on the BioLogos site exclude some of these key principles of biblical interpretation.
They have made science their god and religion...much of science is speculation...no observational science can be applied to origins...speed of light is assumed to be constant throughout the universe.
I believe there is a gap between Genesis 1:1-2 and Genesis 1:3...a catachlismic and angelic commotion must have taken place as we read of the fall of Lucifer in Isaiah and Ezekiel...the earth was formless and void...important to study these words...
elsewhere NT Wright follows the principles of exegesis and hermeneutics carefully. Why does he not do the same in Genesis 1-3. Is it because he wants to mould the meaning to meld with the ruling evolutionary paradigm?
“...charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to MYTHS and endless genealogies, which promote SPECULATIONS rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.” - 1Tim1:3
Thank you my friend! Please feel free to come by my channel. I may not have a ThD, but at least I talk about things that make more sense than this, and I get some cool guests as well!
Exactly, the Bible is filled with Myth and inaccurate endless genealogies
Nevermind the Gospels, or the letters of Paul, or the entire New Testament, which teaches that Adam was a real person.
+GreenSlugg If it was viewed as a type of parable or ancient story depicting a heavenly meaning beyond the reach of human understanding then the historical probability is not the part that matters. The meaning is the important part. The means of illustrating it are irrelevant. Genesis 1;27 just simply says man and woman were created. Genesis 2;15--25 is a later Myth used to illustrate many truths such as mankind's awareness of self. Limiting philosophical truth to a set of physical boundaries kill's the spirit which is what I feel literal fundamental interpretation does and is doing. The fruit is in the comment section of videos like this one. Believe it or not their are biblical scholars that still believe in Jesus.
truethinker The problem with idea that Genesis was intended to be a mere story is that Genesis refers to itself as history on multiple occasions, and the writers of the New Testament also considered Genesis to be history.
The men in Genesis are even included in the geneology of Jesus Christ.
GreenSlugg That is the big question; can we still believe in the historical Jesus and his salvation with a view of the old testament that includes tradition, folk lore, mythopoeic stories, legion, a different cosmology, limited size and scope of the world and universe and a basis towards an ethnic people ? Even with it's negative ethical connotations total contradictions and oblivious attempts to edit out many errors it comes down to the Cross and the willingness to give our life to Jesus..
In the ancient world Myth and Scientific fact were not distinguished. The meaning{s} of the story is what was being communicated the means (a common Myth) was what made it hold true (rightly divided) regardless of the time period especially to a modern world.
The two shall become one flesh.
truethinker The need for the cross is founded in the history of Genesis. The Hebrews did distinguish between history, parable, and poetry.
Jesus claimed Genesis to be history, and He also claimed to be the only way to Heaven.
Jesus Himself taught that if we do not believe Him on Heavenly things then we would not believe Him on Earthly things. And why should we? After all, if Jesus can't get it right about Genesis, why should we believe Him about anything else?
Jesus also said that if we do not believe in Moses, then we will not believe in Him.
So, bottom line is that if Genesis is wrong, then the New Testament, which bases the Gospel on the fact that Genesis is history, is also wrong.
GreenSlugg I have a different view than you, that was my point. The history of the war is usually tolled by the victors. When events are recorded by different groups separated by many factions,especially time, they may speak about the same event with a different perspective. It boils down to how we feel the bible came into being and how much God allowed human influences to effect its final product; or is it a final product? A study of the same events told by the different writers of the four gospels proves the human perspective and can not be combined into one exact set of facts. Many believe the gospels were a gathering of oral and written (Q) traditions taking shape as the early Church answered questions to the heresies of the day. If you haven't studied the bible as literature, in the secular setting I would not expect the discrepancies to be pointed out or answered by you. I have spent years trying to put together the pieces and find the answers, plus I thoroughly enjoy modern theology. Its unfortunate people have and "all or nothing" approach because it stifles learning and fosters ignorance, intolerance and hatred.
Jesus spoke to the people where they were, he didn't have time to teach them Quantum Physics. Now he does, so he can speak to us where we are today. Come out of the dark ages and start reading your bible with the intellect, logic and good common sense God gave you.
Well said!!
What's the context of this quote? What is Augustine referring to? Can you give me the citation?
I saw a report that said something like 50% of the people in England consider themselves to be atheists. N.T. Wright is quite prolific in his criticism of American Christians. It seems to me that if NT Wright and the other leaders of Christianity in England were doing such a superior job that number would not be so high. N.T. Wright should spend some time looking in the mirror trying to figure out why Christianity is dieing out in his own country versus constantly criticizing Christians in America.
*****
Typical internet tough guy response and grammar police you should get yourself a badge and wear it around so you can feel superior all the time. My point and I have watched a lot of NT Wrights stuff is that he seems to go out of his way to say things like you people in America obsess about this or that which no one else cares about. Like we are a bunch of idiots unenlightened fundamentalist cretins. Yet in his own country half the population consider themselves Atheist so it would seem that whatever the churches in England are doing including him isn't working. That seems a much more pressing issue than to be constantly commenting on what is wrong with America.
Chad Patton I think Wright's concern is to be understood not as an implicit argument on weather America or UK has more Christians, rather...As a New Testament scholar, He's disturbed seeing how political influence of deism (launched by Thomas Jefferson) has affected American mainstream Christianity!
Also a lot of the none atheist in England are agnostics, muslims ,hindus or follow things like new age or druids there are more so called druids in England than in Ireland others will call themselves spiritual but not religious and they don't believe in Jesus. However, there are still some believes there and I don't mean Catholics a growing group. I mean born again believers. However, those believers exist in spit of and not because of people like people like Wright
when we interpret the Bible we need to start with Love, not Human understanding, always knowing that we never see or picture the whole . if we are blessed the picture opens after years of of observation, little by little, kiss by Kiss.
This is fluff that would be too sugary even for Walt Disney. Feel free to come by my channel, I think I can help you to think in a better way.
@@GreenSlugg No it's quite wise. As Paul says in Roman's 13 nothing matters unless it is done from the motive of love. Jesus said people will know you are mine by your love for one another. True Christians are the ones who produce the fruit of the Spirit which all have to do with being more loving. It all comes back to love. The greatest thing and the most excellent way.
@megaead69 I DID watched the entire video before commenting. What's your point? What did he say that disputes what I said?
I think about something similar to this with the youth kids that I sponsor. "How can I help lead these kids in truth to know Christ?" I've found that there is no easy answer, but it involves hard work, prayer, fasting, and relationship building. The axiom "people don't care how much you know till they know how much you care" is true. Be relational, speak the truth, and confront errors when they come up in a gentle and respectful way. (1Pet. 3:14-17; 2Cor. 10:4-6) Love opens ears/hearts/minds.
Mr Wright’s god seems a little to small for my liking.
You're missing what he's actually saying...
He says "We need to lighten up, we need to uncouple these issues". So we can take God's wonderfully integrated body of truth and break it up and then pick and choose what we want and reject what we don't like? And having done this, do we think it will have no impact on the rest of what God is saying to us?
This man is more impressed with himself than he is with God.
Well. God is pretty unimpressive.
Why question the historicity of Genesis? What biblical reason would you not take it literally?
It’s clearly not literal. Just read it slowly...
St. Patrick’s Day 2012 God spoke to me to my very being and he said I created everything, everything created, I created-Hills.
I wonder if this brilliant scholar believes that?
That's actually a perfect analogy. Literally swapping one myth for another.
Wright characteristically sees this part of the Bible through the lens of metaphor/symbol/some big picture idea that he imposes on the text itself (as he does, for example, with the rapture reference 1 Thessalonians). He completely misses the much greater and more powerful truth that the Genesis creation account is in perfect harmony with, and precedes by thousands of years, how geologists and the rest of science have come to understand the earth's creation through its geological time periods.
He is careful, nuanced, and eloquent in his sometimes-misguided thoughts as he opens a door that others naively stumble through and call the Old Testament full of "myth" or "metaphor," and that somehow it's okay to do that because it's still symbolic or theoretical truth. From that point such people will commonly interpret Scripture to mean whatever they want it to mean because that's what's done with myth, metaphor, and symbol.
He may read Scripture from the bottom up (that is, from the text itself to what it means), but he interprets it from the top down (that is, imposing his a priori thoughts down onto the text).
It took me a while to figure this out about him, but I now see it all over his thinking.
Very well explained and its very true. I really like it.
I really like his take on certain things but disagree with other things. Not 1 christian scholar pastor teacher have it all right. Unfortunately I think we were taught to believe everything from a pulpit or from a educators but we needed to be taught critical thinking and be in prayer ourselves ...
Interestingly I don't once hear him say this earth will pass away. All that exists now will be destroyed. God is creating a new earth void of all dysfunction and perversions from sinfulness.
There is more than one Genesis creation account. Which one are you talking about? Genesis 2 is far different than Genesis 1.
To be born again also includes accepting Christ as savior, don't forget that. I know lots of people who believe in God, or at least say they do, but have a big problem when it comes to understanding who Jesus is. It took me a long time too, I've only been born again for 3 years. I see a lot of my old self in the opinions of other people who haven't gotten to that point yet. As for the interpretations, I think most of them work for me better when I take them literally rather than symbollically.
Could you give an example of one of them explicitly saying that the creation story isn't meant to tell us about the process of creation? Im not saying it doesn't exist, Ive just never seen it. But like I said you can find ancient examples of people claiming what you believe no matter what it is even thought the people you mentioned are relatively new considering the age of the myth in question.The fact is your view on it is a very recent development in theology rooted in a necessity to modernize
I’m new to Wright, but in listening to him, you can’t avoid the tendency that he wants to spiritualized everything. I’m wondering what his view of the miracles of Jesus are. Will he cast them as natural healings? Did the feeding of the 5,000 really just happen because people shared what they had?
If you can be dismissive or “agnostic” about what he seems to be, you can just as easily be dismissive of the life and mission of Jesus.
The Bible's text differs. Genesis 1 and 2 are metaphorical--any scholar can recognize its metaphorical similarity to Revelation. But a lot of the Bible is literal, some figurative, instructive, descriptive, prescriptive...etc. Take the text individually.
I agree--I enjoy many of Wright's videos but this one was very fuzzy. Interpretation of Gen 1-11 is critical to interpretation of the rest of the Bible--if you start to fudge here then the scripture will "unravel" (λύω loo John 10:35).
I think its impossible to mix up myth and what the text actually says. Myth has a certain definable charcateristic. Defining terms is extremely important. When dealing with Genesis like any other biblical book, the writer was not writing an artistic genre so that we can imagine what he is trying to say. A most profound way of looking at Genesis is the way Moses and the way the rest of the Penteteuch, Jesus, and the NT writers understood it. Intercanonically is God's entire communication to us without concealing through intentional fables or myth literary devices. In other words, looking at Genesis cohesively with all the canon and as close to its author's intent (dual authorship) is the safest way to ascertain the meaning.
I think the Bishop is spot on about the real message of Genesis. What I think, (we), as people tend to do is make the meaning fit into our world view instead of the view the writers are trying to convey. When I read Genesis I wonder many things about it. For example who was the woman that Cain married? Where did she come from. There are many other things like this. So, what we end up doing is filling in ideas about who the woman was Cain married instead of seeing the message that is being told. Off we go again, on some rabbit chase to figure out some obscure part of it and missing the mark as usual.
Shamgar yes I agree. we try to fit the whole Bible into a 21 century interpretation. I believe the creation account and the following chapters up to 11 (Genesis 1-11) could very well be be figurative. it doesnt mean it takes away from God's word. but it changes the meaning of what the author was meaning. He would probably be trying to explain how we got here today.
He could sum up what he believes in less than 3 seconds. He has to write a book about every response.
Matthew 5:37King James Version (KJV) 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Daniel, is out of context your right, but the sad reality in here is that this theologians are leading the people of God in a dark and unsafe path the guessing one, modern science = today knowledge, is defining the Bible not the other way around, is science bad? not it is not, but is clear that the natural man is a fall creature and only by the assistant of God holy Spirit come the understanding of the mystery of God's plan, science is constantly changing we grow in knowledge but the word of Yahweh is perfect.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
When I bring Matthew 5 what I had in mind was that sometimes people try to explain things and add words and more words and the last of it is sin, the Bible says clear do not add to the word do not take from it.
Pro 10:19 In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.
Faith is believe in that we can not yet see, in whom are we ought to trust in God's counsel or men's.
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked
Finally my friend trust, the Scriptures, with them Jesus defeat satan, follow their sayings and you and your family will walk in the unpopular path but the path of life.
He's an intellectual
Exactly!!!! He takes the very long way round to travel a minuscule distance. In fact....possibly going backwards.
I switch off as soon as he opens his mouth as a result...
It is relevant to the time we call a "day". I am not saying this to antagonize you, but I am just not sure that the creation story is meant to be taken literally. It is totally possible that you re right, but I also believe it is very possible that the account of the creation was dumbed down a considerable amount in an attempt to convey a bigger meaning.
The Bible is a story book, not a science text.
Your interpretation vastly oversimplifies the context.
In Matt 19:4-6, you have a number of elements involved:
1. "Have you not read..." This gives us Christ's source for authority: the Scriptures.
1a. Christ interpreted this passage literally, since he used it as a definition of marriage, which was for the purpose of confuting the ridiculous questioning of the Pharisees.
1b. I wouldn't use a figurative illustration from LOTR to solve an ethical dilemma.
Jesus didn’t descend from a myth.
Evidence show evolution made man. Evidence also shows delusional man made God. The religion scam has got the gullible fools duped.
That was golden. Thank you.
@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.
God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. gen1:5
So yes, day was established the first day.
For us, yes, to understand. God doesn't need a day, he could do all things at once.
I so love God and His knowledge that we little lawyers would be looking for a loophole in everything from Genesis to Revelation.
N.T. Wright is not an American fundamentalist, so he does not claim the Adam and Eve story is historical truth. He practically admits it's a myth, however, he tries hard to explain that being a myth does not necessarily means it's not true. In what sense does he think it is true is, however, not clear.
pannonia77 I am amazed that you can’t beyond very basic concepts.
Question Bishop Wright, did you eat your breakfast today? Wright’s answer We should decouple the concept of material or physical nourishment from functional sustenance. While a traditional English breakfast is traditionally a hearty meal, the more meaningful concept is the feeling of feeling full with the conference that I can answer the question with wit, wisdom and empathy for those around us who are struggling to find meaning in the term breakfast, let alone partake in the ritual that breaks a fast, if you know what I mean.
And the point of your last post is absolutley awesome! Traditionally all rabbis only allowed students who were the best of the best to continue to be their disciples. The rest were relegated as general laborers. Jesus, instead, selected laborers, who had already been rejected and entrusted them to be the first to live out and share the Gospel. That is so like Jesus.
*Genesis 1, 2, and 3 are some of the most explosive chapters*
I agree with Wright's characterization, but I think it has more of a connection with actual events than what Wright seems to imply.
Certainly these chapters are foundation to the rest of the Bible. Certainly they illuminate the human condition far more truly any other piece of literature I know of. And as such they might be considered myth in the sense that Wright means. But I really think they also speak truly when they come to the history of the world.
I do not mean that the six days of creation must be interpreted as six literal days. But I do think they speak of six episodes in the creation of the earth and have an uncanny similarity to what modern science tells us about the history of the world.
When it comes to Adam and Eve, I think there is more than myth there. I think there was a moment in the history of the world when a fully human being appeared, having as the Bible describes him, spirit, soul, and body. And I think that archaeology affirms that was not so distant historically.
The creation narrative in Genesis is a story, but it is not fiction.
Then you're not understanding NT Wright. You need to spend more time on it.
@@JAFAtuber What am I not understanding?
@@JAFAtuber I really only differ at the point of how much is "myth" and how much is history. I personally see chapters 2 and 3 as allegorical history and chapter 1 as a polemical introduction to creation and not a literal description, though it bears an uncanny semblance to what science has determined was the order of events in the development of the earth. Since it is inspired, there can be several levels of meaning here. The issue in question, is of course, impossible to answer. So, my small difference with Wright is moot.
@@doncamp1150 That's what you're not understanding. It's not a QUANTITATIVE issue; it's a QUALITATIVE issue. The Book of Revelation isn't part apocryphal literature; it's 100% apocryphal literature. Genesis isn't written partly in Ancient Historiography and partly in factual story. It's 100% Ancient Historiography. So, just like Rev. has to be interpreted and understood completely in its apocryphal form and setting, Genesis has to be completely understood in its Ancient Historiography form and setting. The reader just can't decide what literary filter they want to use based upon their own personal predilections.
Ancient Historiography employs myth into its genre. Ge. 1-3 is 100% Ancient Historiography, therefore, Ge. 1-3 employs myth 100%. That isn't to say there isn't a literal primal couple, or that their names weren't "Adam" and "Eve", as highly doubtful as that is, nevertheless, it's not the point. The point is the forms (within the myth) have a function-- to relate a story. It's the essence, plot and theme of the story that truly matters, not the facts or characters.
And if musicians didn't play the notes exactly as Beethoven wrote them, it would no longer be Beethoven and more likely unlistenable garbage. Not unlike this particular thesis...
+synergyfilmsnz If you ever studied theology or music theory you would realize how ridicules your statement is.
+truethinker I've studied both extensively, but thanks all the same for your ad hominem attack without actually engaging in the argument.
synergyfilmsnz Then you should know Beethoven's music is theorized and modern compositions only remotely resemble what he actually wrote. Same with the Bible.
The point that Dr. NT Wright is making, that Genesis' primary thrust is that God dwelling with man, is a derivation. But the narrative is the narrative. Genesis 1-11 is clearly history, primarily and it also implies that God indeed wants to dwell with man, which is secondary. Text always should be first.
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.
The wise man builds his house upon a rock. NTW builds his house upon...his own hot air. A nice foundation of speculation with some guessing and conjecture on top of that, and then some wobbly postulation sitting at the top. It's like a theology made entirely of Jenga pieces.
while i appreciate his enthusiasm and his attempts to look at the subject in a broader sense i tend to find that he goes to far to the other side and in the final analysis adds nothing of substance that you can take away with you that is of use. He is critical , acts insightful but offers only fluff. I think he makes many fundamentalists say more than they are actually saying. Notice he does not answere whether it is myth or historical or both? when he talks he reminds me of the static between two radio stations and you are trying to dial one in but just getting fuzz. Fuzz is not revelation. I think the question fundamentalists ask is very suitable and right to ask. Are they literal historical persons and was the fall a historical event. cmon wright just answer the question or confress you havent a clue. we are not hung up but just wrestling for truth.
Thought provoking. Peace
Fabulous and corrective in a respectful way.
"We don't bundle up the issues that way." Yes, which is precisely why the rest of the West is years ahead of America when it comes to how rapidly the West is dying.
@@Jonathan-si2nd I've tried to explain this to people and I've noticed how much they ignore it like it's not a problem. Russia could have long ago conquered the majority of Europe if not for the fact America is constantly protecting their non-Russian nations. We're doing the same thing even in the South China Sea. Their whole way of life depends on America protecting them, and even then it doesn't profit so they're rapidly destroying themselves. Unfortunately we're going the same way.
I'm starting to think that the best thing to do is to let Russia and China run wild. Only once people see outright how weak these nations are will they understand how much of a failure liberalism is.
Yakitty smackitty!! A whole lot of hot air.
@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.
@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.
This guy is great at beating around the bush.
If you want simple and incorrect answers to complex subjects look elsewhere
As intelligent as this guy sounds, he is simply wrong.
Yep. Just like every other Christian is also wrong. Because another Christian said you were.
Tarp ness intelligent, yes. Also delusional
@@polarisnorth4875 Satan is very intelligent that doesn't make everything he says true.
This anybody can do; provided you are delusional. This is the type of people that have created new religions and confusion.
As grammatically correct as your sentence is, the real meaning of genesis has simply gone over your head.
I thought I answered your question (that it was an irrelevant/misleading one).
Parts of the Apocrypha are certainly good history (I, II Maccabees, for example). The context (time, source, who makes the statement --- i.e. Christ = God), puts limitations on the possible range of meaning.
In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.....+
Would someone hand this man a balance pole so he can continue to tightrope this narrow theological fence. He isn't a fundamentalist Christian, he is a funambulist one. Congratulations BioLogos... you are doing in over a decade what atheism couldn't do in over 2000 years by weakening Christianity from within.
Indeed.
Jesus, Peter and Paul treated Genesis as history but NT Wright seems to know better.
Romans 5:12- Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--
this is excellent! but how do we respond to heretics, liars and new agers who want to do to the gospels, ressurection narratives etc. what wright is doing to genesis? how do we teach people who twist scripture which bits are allegorical and which bits are true?
Wright is just showing that he's a weak, timid Christian. Jesus basically confirmed the Genesis account when denouncing divorce in Matthew 19:4-6. He was quoting Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24. In Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51, Jesus also mentioned Abel when rejecting the religious leaders.
The point of our lord's quote in Matthew does not have to be understood as supporting creation of two humans in Eden. The point is God brought Adam and Eve together and what God had brought together no person is to separate. No hint of creation as the context there. Instead, it refers to God's authority.
Dion Sanchez You don't know the Bible. If you did, then you would know Jesus was the one that created everything. Jesus is the Old Testament LORD, which is Jehovah, or God the Son. Jesus is the Word become flesh. (John 1: 1-3, 14) You don't know Jesus very well when you don't believe the Word in the Bible. You are basically calling Jesus a liar. You are not believing who Jesus said He is. The whole Bible was guided by divine inspiration, and you don't believe that. You are not worshiping God in spirit and in truth.
"Jesus answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”" (Matthew 19:4-6)
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27)
"So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:21-24)
You didn't answer my point. Good day.
Jesus is also a myth. Myths may convey profound truths, unless they are taken literally, in which case they are turned into absurdities.
No, the distraction is the progressive watering-down of Christianity to meet the secular world's beliefs and what they call love. I happen to think there is the possibility of a gap theory between verses 1 & 2 of Genesis 1. I don't care either way. The Bible is written about the human experience and the salvation of man. However, when liberal, so-called Christians, especially leaders in a church, start promoting the belief in macroevolution, then I have to fight back against that nonsense. And Genesis clearly indicates Jehovah (God the Son) spoke the universe into existence...God doesn't need a violent explosion like in the big bang theory to create everything.
Well folks of course we can't take this line literally but that doesn't mean it isn't real history, ... ????? what? This is sophistry, he acts as though something can be a myth but also true at the same time. Completely delusional, just admit it is mythology just like all religion and end the insanity.
@martalog121
Confusion maybe the fault of those who receive the message...
To take Genesis iiterally is to be honest with it just as Jesus was. Jesus quoted Genesis as literal...
This guy is the worst. You can never get a straight answer out of him.
Its good. Its so fresh to say with political, cultural, a way of saying ... , good! Thank you!
the moving bug on the wall was kind of distractive, I couldn't help but stare, lol
I am in no way an expert, but I believe that the sun was not created until the third or fourth day. I may be wrong, but it does make for an interesting conversation. If the sun was not created on the first day then time could not be measured in days. I know the first words were "Let there be light", but I am not sure the light was from the sun.
But those who fail to find me harm themselves;
all who hate me love death.”
What is a Right Reverend? What makes a person a "Reverend"? Is the title man made or God given? Honest question seeking bible answer.
I think you mean APOCLYPTIC not apocryphal related to Revelation.
I agree that "ancient historiography employs myth into its genre" at times. At times historiography employes other types or genre such as the hero story or legend. But I do not think that means the whole of the story must be that genre. For example, the Iliad is an epic. It employs symbolism, and legend. It is a poem with many kinds of figurative language. And it turns out that it is also based on history.
Genesis 1 is a polemic against the gods of the Ancient Near East and Egypt. It is also myth in the sense that Wright means it, though I prefer the term legend. It is not symbolic in the way chapters 2 and 3 are. And it is historiography since what it described did happen. But it is in the style of ancient literature not modern. It is highly stylized.
Genesis 2 and 3 also employ a variety of genres. They are legend. They are historiography. They are highly symbolic, even to the point of being allegorical. And they are also prophecy. There is no need to force them into one genre any more than we must force the Iliad into one genre. This mixture of genres is more common in ancient historiography than simple raw history - which is extremely rare and is more like the tablets that tell of schoolboys in Sumer- or completely myth or allegory.
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.
@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?
It's fine to get overaching themes, but that doesn't change the reality of the history.
4:45 I disagree with Ken Ham and mostly agree with this man. I think Augustine had a good take on the 6 days with the first 3 being like rooms and the second 3 like the furniture of the rooms. I think the earth very old and God did it in stages and mankind is about 6,000 years old. There was a flood when God tipped the earth over 23.5 degrees and the ice canopy melted. Pangea broke up after the flood. Cosmic rays shortened life spans and Neanderthals are distantly related to one of Noah’s sons! The Carbon dating and Potassium dating are off because of bad assumptions.
@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.
when it comes to literal interpretation of the bible, the scriptures themselves inform us when it is literal and when it is not. When it is a parable, we are told. The scriptures are written simply enough that we can understand them in our finite minds. WHY would God not mean 6 days when he says 6 days then on the 7th he rested? Did He change time then to make 6 days mean more and the seventh to mean just one day? I think not. As a whole, it is meant to be taken literally.
god did not write the torah, moses did. and the torah we have now is not the exact torah moses wrote.
and yes theres work thats been done by physicists to show that at the beginning of the universe days were much much much much longer than they are now. we are currently in the sixth day from gods point of view
@mikeeboy1000 I don't believe you're actually hearing what he is saying.
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.
The title is misleading.