Respectfully, it's interesting how NT Wright has this nuance on Genesis, but is still conservative with regards to sex ethics. I'm trying to figure out how he grounds his ethics in considering homosexual unions as "wrong", or at the very least "not permitted" in a supposed "Christian lifestyle"; despite understanding all of this scholarship regarding the Bible.
Well because one has nuance in the intent of the authors and is not supposed to be read literally. Whereas the other is a clear doctrine, clearly outlined. The Bible is collection of books, with various different genres. Genesis chapter 1 and Leviticus chapter 18 are two completely different genres.
@@RedCloudGawdianBut just as the Bible disagrees literally with current scientific understanding of creation, it also disagrees with current psychiatric understanding of sexuality. The Bible deals with supposed revelation about sexuality. Psychology and psychiatry use the scientific method.
This response wholly undermines the "authority of Scripture", "inerrancy" and the Biblical God's supposed unchangeability. It's not only - as Brierley suggests at the end - that the cultural conditions determine the questions people ask, they also determine the answers they get. A text that is infinitely malleable in this way is erquivalent to a Magic 8 ball with an entirely arbitrary set of possible answers.
The question can only arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and the Bible. Science no more contradicts the Bible than it does "Ode to the West Wind" or "The Old Man and the Sea."
Let's get one thing straight - it is called the scientific process, (SP) not just science. This means the evidence which is separate from the claim, is validated from all available sources. How do we know that Gengis Khan lived and defeated the Muslim army? It was recorded by many different sources on both sides, but one thing we DO NOT know is what words Khan spoke and whether they were of any significance. That does NOT take away from the fact that he lived, conquered and died. The SP helped examine the evidence and proved what he did. Not science. When it comes to the bible and correcting the massive number of translation corrections needed, that requires an original which we don't have.
"When it comes to the bible and correcting the massive number of translation corrections needed, that requires an original which we don't have" You spoke of "scientific process", but you did not apply to the above statement. Obviously, there cannot be originals due to deteriorations, but scholars can deduce "corrections" using the "scientific process". In fact, this is how most "trustworthy" historical or original science is done. They look at biblical manuscripts and non-biblical materials to determine the meanings or words and phrases.
@@thomasc9036 The SP is the whole, not just the part that you highlighted. Part of the qualification of the SP is understanding the culture and applying that to the process, which in this case is poor language understanding (new language without vowel markers that leads to inconsistencies) and other anomalies (like intent) that leads to uncertainty and translation errors. Given also the quality of scribes back in the day were not of a high standard and very few could read - well, not going to place much stock on what was recorded was either correct or in most cases even real. The bible is as much a work of fiction as harry potter is - and only half as fun to read.
Sure NT Wright a nice guy, but it all seems word salad. He was raised in a belief. Muslim if raised in that belief. As Rabbi Singer explained Christians take it literally when needed and metaphorically when they don’t agree. Wonder if NTW reads Hebrew?
If God gave us brains and we use them rationally and he created the universe which declares his glory then whatever we discover using our rational brains about the universe is true and if that happens to be that we evolved over billions of years then so be it.
I do like NT Wright but like so many scholars he over complicates and tends to over engineer to many answers. He speaks so well but hardly answers the questions. This is a classic case in point where we are told to believe Genesis 1 is a picture of a temple. Come on NT you are better than this😊
Nothing remotely like an answer to a simple question. It is impossible to reconcile the process of scientific discovery with a belief in a supernatural god who just did it all.
"[Physics qua physics] is interested in discovering the laws of inanimate nature" (Eugene Wigner, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences). "[Mathematics qua mathematics] is the science of skillful operations with concepts and rules invented just for this purpose" (ibid). Genesis 1-3 is the story of creation presenting eternal truths about God, humankind, and the essence and significance of creation. It is not a scientific explanation, since it transcends the domain of science. Hence, Genesis does not and cannot "contradict the findings of science," nor the other way around. Therefore, the war between science and Genesis is a myth.
He actually said a lot of things in a manner typical of him. Looking at things from cultural historical philosophical and theological perspectives all at the same time. In the first part he started with clarifying two phrases one related to science and the other one is literal interpretation of the bible. The point being we should approach this question more flexibly because both things are deeper and more nuanced than they appear to be. Then he goes on to tell the various things that contributed to the development of evolutionary science as we know it and how a lot of Christians have had not much of a trouble holding this understanding of the universe in a way that doesn't destroy their faith. That was everything on the first breath.
Yes, Genesis is literal and has always been literal all throughout history! True science when viewed with a proper Biblical/scientific worldview agrees 100% with what we observe in reality! Don't marry your religion to your science or you will be divorced tomorrow, because science changes it's truths every day! Today it will Love you, but tomorrow it won't, unless it's within the bounds of the Holy Bible, which is inerrant!
Science always changes, true! But most science is settled, and other parts are continuously being refined through research and experiments. Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of settled science that confirms that not all in the Bible is true, and was either based on unscientific primitive understandings of the universe, or worst case, were completely fabricated. That is why no true thinker can say that all of genesis is literal.
@@tarikramadaan3342 is this really the hill you're choosing to die on bro?? 😂😂😂 II Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV [16] All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. The New Testament is filled with quotes from the Old Testament. Luke 4:17-20 NKJV [17] And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: [18] “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; [19] To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” [20] Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him.
@@tarikramadaan3342 Practically the whole New Testament is a tissue of allusions to and quotations from the Old. If you read both (in any translation) you’ll see.
Respectfully, it's interesting how NT Wright has this nuance on Genesis, but is still conservative with regards to sex ethics. I'm trying to figure out how he grounds his ethics in considering homosexual unions as "wrong", or at the very least "not permitted" in a supposed "Christian lifestyle"; despite understanding all of this scholarship regarding the Bible.
Well because one has nuance in the intent of the authors and is not supposed to be read literally. Whereas the other is a clear doctrine, clearly outlined. The Bible is collection of books, with various different genres. Genesis chapter 1 and Leviticus chapter 18 are two completely different genres.
@@RedCloudGawdianBut just as the Bible disagrees literally with current scientific understanding of creation, it also disagrees with current psychiatric understanding of sexuality. The Bible deals with supposed revelation about sexuality. Psychology and psychiatry use the scientific method.
This response wholly undermines the "authority of Scripture", "inerrancy" and the Biblical God's supposed unchangeability. It's not only - as Brierley suggests at the end - that the cultural conditions determine the questions people ask, they also determine the answers they get. A text that is infinitely malleable in this way is erquivalent to a Magic 8 ball with an entirely arbitrary set of possible answers.
Very good answer. You caant reconcile the 2, you have to disregard the bible as it doesn't align with reality.
The question can only arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and the Bible.
Science no more contradicts the Bible than it does "Ode to the West Wind" or "The Old Man and the Sea."
Right. And atheist though Shelley was, his West Wind in no way contradicts the reality of the Holy Spirit.
Let's get one thing straight - it is called the scientific process, (SP) not just science. This means the evidence which is separate from the claim, is validated from all available sources.
How do we know that Gengis Khan lived and defeated the Muslim army? It was recorded by many different sources on both sides, but one thing we DO NOT know is what words Khan spoke and whether they were of any significance. That does NOT take away from the fact that he lived, conquered and died.
The SP helped examine the evidence and proved what he did. Not science.
When it comes to the bible and correcting the massive number of translation corrections needed, that requires an original which we don't have.
"When it comes to the bible and correcting the massive number of translation corrections needed, that requires an original which we don't have"
You spoke of "scientific process", but you did not apply to the above statement. Obviously, there cannot be originals due to deteriorations, but scholars can deduce "corrections" using the "scientific process". In fact, this is how most "trustworthy" historical or original science is done. They look at biblical manuscripts and non-biblical materials to determine the meanings or words and phrases.
@@thomasc9036 The SP is the whole, not just the part that you highlighted. Part of the qualification of the SP is understanding the culture and applying that to the process, which in this case is poor language understanding (new language without vowel markers that leads to inconsistencies) and other anomalies (like intent) that leads to uncertainty and translation errors. Given also the quality of scribes back in the day were not of a high standard and very few could read - well, not going to place much stock on what was recorded was either correct or in most cases even real.
The bible is as much a work of fiction as harry potter is - and only half as fun to read.
@@PClanner And your original Plato /Euclid is where?
Sure NT Wright a nice guy, but it all seems word salad. He was raised in a belief. Muslim if raised in that belief. As Rabbi Singer explained Christians take it literally when needed and metaphorically when they don’t agree. Wonder if NTW reads Hebrew?
If God gave us brains and we use them rationally and he created the universe which declares his glory then whatever we discover using our rational brains about the universe is true and if that happens to be that we evolved over billions of years then so be it.
I do like NT Wright but like so many scholars he over complicates and tends to over engineer to many answers. He speaks so well but hardly answers the questions. This is a classic case in point where we are told to believe Genesis 1 is a picture of a temple. Come on NT you are better than this😊
Nothing remotely like an answer to a simple question. It is impossible to reconcile the process of scientific discovery with a belief in a supernatural god who just did it all.
"[Physics qua physics] is interested in discovering the laws of inanimate nature" (Eugene Wigner, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences). "[Mathematics qua mathematics] is the science of skillful operations with concepts and rules invented just for this purpose" (ibid).
Genesis 1-3 is the story of creation presenting eternal truths about God, humankind, and the essence and significance of creation. It is not a scientific explanation, since it transcends the domain of science. Hence, Genesis does not and cannot "contradict the findings of science," nor the other way around. Therefore, the war between science and Genesis is a myth.
NT used a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
Stupid comment alert 🚨
The failure of our school system on full display here....
@@byrondickens keep the church out of school, because religion only dumbs kids down
He actually said a lot of things in a manner typical of him. Looking at things from cultural historical philosophical and theological perspectives all at the same time.
In the first part he started with clarifying two phrases one related to science and the other one is literal interpretation of the bible. The point being we should approach this question more flexibly because both things are deeper and more nuanced than they appear to be. Then he goes on to tell the various things that contributed to the development of evolutionary science as we know it and how a lot of Christians have had not much of a trouble holding this understanding of the universe in a way that doesn't destroy their faith. That was everything on the first breath.
@@byrondickensYou touch on a huge problem there.
Yes, Genesis is literal and has always been literal all throughout history! True science when viewed with a proper Biblical/scientific worldview agrees 100% with what we observe in reality! Don't marry your religion to your science or you will be divorced tomorrow, because science changes it's truths every day! Today it will Love you, but tomorrow it won't, unless it's within the bounds of the Holy Bible, which is inerrant!
You sound like you are fully opiated within your religious superstitions
Absolutely. Amen
Nah thats a false rabbit trail.
Genesis means "literally" what it's human ancient author meant it as..
Science doesn't need to consult the Bible.
Science always changes, true! But most science is settled, and other parts are continuously being refined through research and experiments. Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of settled science that confirms that not all in the Bible is true, and was either based on unscientific primitive understandings of the universe, or worst case, were completely fabricated. That is why no true thinker can say that all of genesis is literal.
Do you really think genesis is to be taken literally? I ask this in a spirit of gentleness and curiosity.
Nobody in the Bible had a bible and ... NOBODY in the Bible Ring a Bell 🔔 for call of prayer...and nobody in the Bible Worship Man on a Cross 😂😂
Everyone in the New Testament had the Hebrew Bible, what are you talking about 😂
@@RedCloudGawdian verse please from the Bible or proof provide
@@tarikramadaan3342 is this really the hill you're choosing to die on bro?? 😂😂😂 II Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV
[16] All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
The New Testament is filled with quotes from the Old Testament.
Luke 4:17-20 NKJV
[17] And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: [18] “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; [19] To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” [20] Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him.
@@tarikramadaan3342 II Timothy 3:16-17 and Luke 4:17-20
@@tarikramadaan3342 Practically the whole New Testament is a tissue of allusions to and quotations from the Old. If you read both (in any translation) you’ll see.
Hopeless..Jude 3 comes to mind,