Questions on Science, Evolution and Genesis with your favourite theologian | Ask NT Wright Anything

[@suzannedebusschere1607]

I'm sorry that people didn't hear the answer they wanted. Perhaps they should consider his comments about culture and seeing things through eyes of expectation or cultural experience. He actually did say and answer quite a lot, whether a person agrees with him or not.

[@kimberlyross6688]

Agreed!

[@ourclarioncall]

Please simplify it for me so I can explain it to one of my children What did you hear him saying about evolution, Adam and Eve etc?

[@jfitz6517]

Wow… that was so much deeper & richer than everything I learned about creation in church growing up.

[@chinocracy]

Since I don't find Michael S. Heiser, I'll be the one to mention him. He says the serpent is just a symbolic name for a seraph or cherub, a throne guardian and one of the Divine Council, one of the divine beings that God created before humanity. That "serpent" was a good guy at the time, but already had plans of rebelling. So he told Adam and Eve, archetypes of the new Image Bearers or representatives of God on Earth, that they can reach Knowledge of Good and Evil (or the prerogative to decide what is good and evil) without submission to God. But God of course knew what was happening, and he respected humanity's decision. Eden is the conjunction of Heaven and Earth, and if Adam and Eve decided differently, Eden would still be around, and the whole Earth would be Eden. But that plan was bumped off. So out of Eden humanity goes (basically Eden was withdrawn), so they won't access the Tree of Life, or immortality in the heavenly realm while enjoying God. That leads to the chaotic and painful world that we humans live in, even today. The serpent became god of the dead, so he was banished to Sheol or the Underworld. And, as a result of their choice, all of humanity goes to Sheol before the Judgment, on whether they would be with God or not. Not being with God in the other world is the actual nature of Hell. Heiser has lots of stuff that really makes more sense than any other interpretation, so I stick with that.

[@jaaaaysselam3372]

W Heiser take (:

[@jenniferbell3173]

I have no education leaving school at 15 yrs of age yet I understand Everything NT says, how he explains just amazes me, Just love love learning from NT

[@jimaspinall2927]

Probably better off learning from a educational book rather than a supernatural storybook

[@midlander4]

He's teaching you nothing

[@dozzlander9809]

Ref knowledge of good and evil: I like NT Wright's distinction between types of knowing. There's a propositional knowledge and experiential knowledge(one we gain throu doing, participation, exposure)

[@byrondickens]

Everybody wants simple answers to complex questions....

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

tripe

[@harrytomdick2401]

You sir, thank you very much for making the Genesis account more complex as it is. I read the Bible I understand it, I listen to you l get confused. Whatever happened to good old biblical exegesis?

[@rodzalez3549]

Yea, like Christians think they have all the answers to complex questions

[@ourclarioncall]

I will buy his book if we just get to the bottom line at the end and state plainly what he believes

[@byrondickens]

​@@ourclarioncall The problem is that Wright is an Anglican so he's used to speaking with people who have a functional cerebral cortex and not half-educated hillbillies who can't follow a complex sentence....

[@stevelangton829]

An idea I have found helpful about the early chapters of Genesis is to point people to George Orwell's "Animal Farm". It is an account of the Russian Revolution; in one sense it is clearly very untrue - said Revolution did not happen on an English farm and the revolutionaries were not animals rebelling against the farmer. But in another sense it is very true, because telling the story in a different 'genre' - in 'Animal Farm' allegorical fantasy - allows Orwell to get behind historical detail and show in a simplified way the ideas behind what happened in the Revolution.

[@wotsitalabowt]

I agree that that's helpful, thank you. So that would mean then that just as not one of the specific events in Animal Farm actually happened, not one of the specific events in Genesis happened. But just as Animal Farm tells us interesting things via simile, metaphor and narrative arc about revolutions (not only the Russian revolution I think?) such as that those who overthrow autocracy can soon become autocrats themselves for instance, Genesis offers us similar truths via simile, metaphor, narrative arc and so on. What would you say Genesis poetically tell us in this way?

[@stevelangton829]

@@wotsitalabowt I'd invite you to explore it for yourself rather than let me tell you about it. But for example, identifying the heavenly bodies as God-given lights (for inter alia calendrical as well as illuminant purposes) was extremely valuable to God's people when most around them saw them as gods or demons, and later encouraged scientific exploration which might have been difficult if people thought they were exploring actual gods....

[@wotsitalabowt]

@@stevelangton829 Thanks, but my main point was that for all the wordplay or obfuscation about metaphor, we can agree that not one of the events of Genesis happened. Nor in Animal Farm. Therefore I have no more need to believe any of it, no more than I need to believe Animal Farm is real. For sure it is possibly telling me about real things, such as that revolutions tend to turn in on themselves, or that people see stars as being God given. Well, fine. Trouble is, nobody believes Animal Farm is literally true, but a significant percentage of humanity does believe that religious origin stories are true. That's a problem.

[@jsp3366]

​@@wotsitalabowt but it is equally or a bigger problem when people deny the *metaphorical* truth of Animal Farm e.g. I have known Communists who would slander Orwell's character in order to defend the Russian Revolution and Stalin. That is a bigger problem than some people hypothetically believing AF was literally true. Accordingly, it is a bigger problem people denying the *metaphorical* truths of the Creation story (e.g. that Man is Fallen) than people believing it literally. Of course, the ideal sweet spot might be something like this conversation: we are able to take it seriously, but not literally. But I'm quite content for others to believe it literally if that means they take it also seriously. The real danger is - as past generations have with horrific consequences- stopped believing in it both literally *and* metaphorically. And there we are back to the Russian Revolution...

[@simonwesteng3610]

I have found that Science has opened Theology up to a more rational understanding of Scripture, not by blind accepting the scientific notion of `evolution` but by allowing the fossil record to saw forth the workings of God upon Creation in time, wherein He works towards a final outcome, which, due to Adam's disobedience/infidelity, has yet to reach its final perfection which God intended from the beginning.

[@darlameeks]

Always a pleasure listening to both of you! Not that I'm the greatest exegete, but I think of the Garden of Eden as a completely different "purview" of the earth. It's apples and oranges to compare the Garden to the earth as we have always known it. The Garden has been hidden from us, no? As if in some other dimension of reality? Genesis describes an idyllic place where both animals and humans are vegetarian (Gen. 1:29-30), and the weather is so temperate that naked humans don't need clothing for warmth or protection. When the first humans were cast out of the Garden, they are sent to a place that is hostile and dangerous. The plants and animals are different, so it's harder to make a living...some plants are poisonous now. Clothing is necessary, and now humans must kill other animals for food. In this purview, the survival of the fittest rules, so animals are killing one another for food, as well. The scientific fact that convinces me that humans were in charge of an earth that was fundamentally different is our body plan. Our bodies seem to be made for luxury, basking in God's presence and love. We aren't like the other animals in this purview at all. We don't have fur or shells to protect us from the elements. We don't have sharp teeth or claws. We can't run very fast or jump very high compared to other animals that might prey upon us. Walking upright on two legs that bend backwards instead of forwards (like birds) means we fall easily. All we have are our big brains and the ability to reason and solve problems. It's a miracle that we have survived at all, much less populated almost every part of the earth as we have. We are not the fittest God's creatures in evolutionary terms! There is also the sudden appearance of modern humans in eastern Africa between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago in the fossil record. It's like our ancestors just popped out of nowhere and started migrating all over the earth. Could that be the moment our kind was cast out of Eden?

[@ccreasman]

Towards the end, when you talked about the cosmic struggle, as well as the point about the author not controlling the people in the narrative, made me think about Tolkien. His creation story demonstrates this concept perfectly.

[@JosiahTheSiah]

Yes, that beginning part of the Silmarillion hits hard, and rings true to life in many ways. A good mythology to be sure.

[@pencilpauli9442]

Tolkein's creation story is better than the Bible.

[@JosiahTheSiah]

@@pencilpauli9442 It's for a fantastical world setting, with elves and dwarves... apples and oranges, my friend!

[@pencilpauli9442]

What cosmic struggle. The whole narrative of good and evil, fall and redemption is a string of just so stories at best and a contrived knot of tosh at worse. The difference is that Tolkien was a single author who wrote over a period of decades rather than multiple authors over centuries shoving in conflicting material, and then confused even more by later selection of which books to include, scriptural modification and problems of translation. Tolkien himself changed some of his lore over time, and explained it as differing narratives within his world. The struggle is between the needs and wants of the individual and the needs and wants of society, the latter changing over time. That a supposedly all knowing, all powerful, all beneficent being came up with such a tortuous convoluted pile of nonsense, with the morality of an autocratic genocidal psychopath, is beyond me. And please spare me the platitude of we don't know god's ways.

[@pencilpauli9442]

@@JosiahTheSiah I would argue that Tolkien's mythos is all the more interesting from having orcs and elves and goblins and dwarves and dragons, than the fantastical narrative of the Bible. The Bible is an organic mess of a work of literature in which the prime mover commits genocide and tells his people they are special, but then there is an epilogue by yet another author who says it's not a local religion for local people, the gentiles also can be saved in the impending but never happening end times. So yeah, I'll concede that the Bible is a bitter, gnarly old crab apple, and the Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion is a juicy orange. Footnote. I'm no Tolkien geek, but afaik, Eru Ilúvatar is far more compassionate than Elohim/Yahweh. When Eru Ilúvatar discovers the dwarves, whom he did not create, instead of wiping them out he sends them to sleep until the elves and then men have awoken.

[@chuimataisinglai8235]

After a long time Seeing Justin again. Since Justin is back I have started following this channel again

[@berkoroo]

For those here, Jonathan Pageau did a great job explaining genesis on Alex O'connor's podcast recently.

[@istvanhorvat5124]

Can you provide a link, please?

[@uberdonkey9721]

I really recommend book "Christianity from the Ground Up' which discusses such stuff (in conclusion, Old Testament is a wisdom text; New Testament focuses on love).. some comparative religion there too (eg Taoism). Such an excellent read, and written by a scientist (a scientist that doesn't deny any of the science) and to be honest the book was not only interesting but hugely enlightening and was a great read (maybe a tiny bit too concise in parts, but still well written and accessible).

[@Truthseek72563]

He should win an award for the mental gymnastics he’s doing 🎉

[@grantbartley483]

Hey Truthseek, you'll never find truth with that attitude. Truth is complex. Ask a quantum physicist. Learn to listen to complex arguments.

[@Lightbearer616]

There was a snake in the Garden of Eden for the same reason there was a Golliwog in Toytown.

[@grantbartley483]

What, because the BBC was racist?

[@jacoschlebusch9053]

Reminds me of Chronicles of Narniawith God being represented by the lion , being wild and unpredictable.

[@loridyson569]

It reminds you of God's story because that is how he wrote it. Adults have a hard time understanding the bible, of God, of good & evil, of morals and of how Jesus died taking on all of our sins in order to save us. He wrote it from a child's way of thinking so that they could understand the joy of good & the hurt of evil which we have a free choice of how we act.

[@markd3250]

The answer to the very first question is to step back and look at the beginning. God is the one who told Moses about the Garden of Eden and what happened, so it literally comes down to the very issue that the account of what Adam and Eve did reveals to us. There were 3 sources to use for making a decision then; God, the serpent (Satan), and man's (Adam and Eve). They're the same 3 we have today. Do you believe and trust in God (He gave us the information in Genesis that Moses wrote down), or do you believe and trust in the serpent (Satan) who told them (and us today) that God has and is lying to us and cannot be trusted, or do you believe in the self-determining decision of man and what man has decided and says? God created everything, including us. The serpent (Satan) created nothing but lies and accusation. Man (Adam and Eve) created disobedience, and all the grief that brought them and all of us ever since. It was the knowledge of good and evil that brought all this about. What else is science except the knowledge of good and evil? Nothing much has changed. "Can you believe the Bible (trust in God)", is the same question as "can you believe the serpent, (trust the accuser and liar)". What are the consequences of whom you choose to believe? Adam and Eve chose poorly and brought death and sorrow to themselves and all of us as a consequence. Jesus chose to trust and obey the Father, and brought life and the hope of salvation to us. Which way do you want to go? The knowledge of good and evil, or the knowledge of the love of God as exemplified by Jesus? All of us today are in the exact same decision-making position as Adam and Eve. Believe in and trust what God says, or believe and trust the serpent, the accuser who said God lies (there's a reason why snakes are known for injecting poisonous venom into their victims). If you buy into the serpent, you've chosen the knowledge of good and evil and all the consequences that brings. If you believe and trust God, the consequences won't happen immediately, but if you trust Him you'll reap the reward which will be eternal life instead of eternal death, which is what trusting the serpent brings you. When God said Adam and Eve would die if they ate or even touched the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, they made the mistake of assuming he meant immediately. When Eve didn't immediately die, to them that proved what the serpent said was true; they would NOT die. They and the serpent were wrong, for while God did say they would die, he didn't say when or how. His warning came true, the serpent's lying accusation didn't. It's the same with God's promise of eternal life. It doesn't happen immediately, but if you have faith in Him, His Word will prove to be true. All the science, all the knowledge, all the words of knowledge written by all the men of science and philosophy through the ages will perish and be forgotten, but God's word will not. Whom do you wish to believe? God, the serpent (Satan), or man's (men and/or women)? Choose wisely.

[@felixchiu6045]

Well said❤

[@Dionysus3883]

So in other words, God set up a trap in the garden in order to prepare humanity for a fallen world that wouldn’t exist if he hadn’t set up a trap in the garden. Makes perfect sense. 😉👍

[@markd3250]

@@Dionysus3883 So in other words, no. If that's what you see in what God created, then you're not going to make it. There's a reason why Jesus said "...small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." If all you care about is mocking and being condescending, you've made your choice.

[@Dionysus3883]

@@markd3250 okie dokie. 👍 Anyway, how is it *not* that way? The garden was perfect. God added an opportunity for failure mechanism knowing that there would be a failure. This is like having a perfectly safe playroom for kids, then leaving a loaded gun in the room, throwing in Mr Rogers to convince the kids that the gun won’t harm them, then being surprised and disappointed when someone gets shot.

[@markd3250]

@@Dionysus3883 Except God didn't say go ahead and eat that fruit, knowing it would kill them just because he wanted them to fail. That's ridiculous. You don't understand the purpose of why we were created. We were created to create the possibility of genuine, true love. The only way that's possible, is if it's voluntary, and for that to be genuine, Adam and Eve had to have the possibility of being able to choose something other than what God wanted. He literally tested that with Adam, when he brought all the animals to him to see what he would call them, to see if he would call them something other than what God would have called them. And apparently he did, so what God created in Adam was working as God needed for Adam to be able to freely choose to love him, or not. The forbidden tree in the middle of the garden was there so Adam and Eve could have something to choose instead of God, in case they didn't want him. He didn't want them to do that, he even told them he didn't want them to do that, but it had to be possible so their free will would be genuine if they chose to stay faithful and true to God.

[@joshuawoodin]

Michael jones of inspiring philosophy, is doing what all christians ought do in learning science and the bible are not in conflict, they harmonize as the scientific revelation was born from the bible specifically 1 passage Psalm 111:2 this atheist strawman of the bible and science are enemies is not real, the ignorance against the bible is astounding and leaving God is why this world has fallen into insanity.

[@mrskerry3544]

I only lasted 14 minutes. My overriding thought was what about people in countries who don't have all this outside help to understand the Bible. They have the Bible and the Holy Spirit. I cannot see them coming up with what NT Wright does. I believe God gives us all we need in the Bible and the Holy Spirit to understand the Gospel. Yes He provides the church with gifted teachers to go deeper, but that is not what I heard in this video.

[@mazmonte77]

At Minute 12 we find an inadvertent suggestion on how we could verify this theory of “ continuous editing of a message” that, according to NT Write, took place in the exile in Babilon - has any of the predictions made in Deuteronomy come true after they were edited? Has Any of the curses predicted there taken place over Israel way after the exile period where the“editing” took place? I just think the Bible is true. The Truth.🤷‍♂️

[@tedclemens4093]

Genesis doesn't call it a "fall," but a revelation. "Their eyes were opened," the text says after the eating of the fruit. I would start there in discussing all that follows.

[@alexreid4131]

So regardless of how the cannon of scripture refers to it or the label Theologians ascribe to it…you believe that Adam and Eve disobeying God was and is a “good” thing? And should we do likewise? Is that what Scripture advises us to do?

[@tedclemens4093]

@@alexreid4131 I'm just going by what the text says. The important thing then is to look at the effects of eating the fruit, not deciding its morality. You and I are not the arbiters of good or evil, God alone is. Remember, the Gospel begins with, "Your sins are forgiven," not with the world's sense of "justice shall be served."

[@alexreid4131]

@@tedclemens4093 you didn’t answer my question sir. Also, from the text, we are told we wouldn’t know the knowledge of good and evil unless the fruit had been eaten. The fruit that God forbade us to eat. So again, ignoring God’s instruction is “good” in your opinion?

[@alexreid4131]

@@tedclemens4093 and the Bible repeatedly refers to that act as a “Fall” and not a revelation. Sin is clearly defined as a deviation from walking in step with the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul says, “Should we sin all the more so that grace may abound?”. Not trying to argue with your friend. Just trying to understand your point of view.

[@tedclemens4093]

@@alexreid4131 As I said, whether eating the fruit was, "good" or "evil" is not mine to decide. So I look (curiously) at cause and effect instead.

[@The-DO]

great!

[@markd3250]

Fourth and somewhat fifth question: We are not living in an eternal world or universe. It was never meant to be that, which is why the law of cause and effect, and of atrophy deterioration was already in place before God created Adam. This was all created as a project, a testing environment for a specific purpose, which was to create the possibility of genuine and true love. This was also why the Garden of Eden was created, and the two trees; the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were placed in the middle of it. After all of that was done, THEN God (Jesus, the Word) said "Let us make man in our image". We are the "pearl of great price in the field" Jesus referred to. God gave Adam free will, and the freedom to use it. This is why He brought animals to Adam to see what he would say, and whatever Adam called it, that was its name. In order for free will to be genuine, there has to be something we can choose that God would NOT want us to, and we have to have the freedom and opportunity to make our choices without undue influence one way or the other. Along with that ability and freedom came the risk that Adam would choose what God didn't want him to, but there was also the possibility that Adam would choose to obey. That's exactly the same situation for every single one of us, always has been and will continue to be until this project is brought to an end, which the Bible clearly reveals it will. It all comes down to love. This whole thing is for the express purpose of creating the possibility of true love, and seeing who will make that choice, even despite all the massive amount of other choices possible. This is why Jesus said the greatest command of the law to the Israelites was to love God, and the only thing Jesus wanted to know from Peter after the crucifixion and resurrection was "Do you love me?". Remember, Jesus is the one who created Adam, and he was the one interacting with him and Eve in the Garden. Jesus is not only telling us the truth, he IS the truth. He only gave us one command just before he left; he said to his disciples "love one another as I have loved you". The singularity and consistency of the focus of that is unmistakeable. Paul gives us a beautiful description of that love in 1st Corinthians chapter 13. If you learn nothing else from studying the Bible, read that chapter and make it the pathway for your choices in life. It is literally the straight and narrow path Jesus spoke of. Don't get distracted by religion, science, or the philosophies of men. Follow Jesus; he's the only one who knows the pathway home.

[@markd3250]

Sin is simply the condition of not being perfect; of falling short of being perfect. It doesn't matter what it is; any flaw is all it takes to make something not perfect. When Adam and Eve chose to believe the serpent instead of God, they were literally turning their back on God and following the serpent. At that moment they became flawed by believing and trusting the liar (who hadn't created or given them anything compared to God who had created everything, including them and given them life) which led them to their deaths. The 'punishment' is not being with God, and instead turning to decay, deterioration and the loss of everything including your life. Once you embrace and believe the lie, you become like that and it becomes part of you. God is absolute, perfect pure energy. Nothing flawed can withstand being in the presence of that. It would be like you (and this is an impossibly minuscule example) trying to stand in the presence of a nuclear explosion and expecting to survive and be okay. God's power is so far beyond that it isn't even conceivable it's so great. Jesus came from the Father, to provide a way to redeem us from that destiny, but we have to choose it and do what He says. He isn't going to force it on anyone. Just as Adam and Eve had the choice to obey or disobey God, we all have the same choice.

[@tomm6167]

All will be well: " *God* has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. … From him and through him and to him are all things." (Romans 11:32,36a). "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, *but because of him who subjected it,* in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God." (Romans 8:20-21).

[@davidvartanian]

Simply put, those are not the right questions to be asking when reading Genesis. You don’t look to Genesis to figure out science. You look to it to figure out theology. The common assumption is that “death” in Romans refers to physical death. Why not spiritual death? Adam represents a life that is dead in sins due to human weakness. Jesus came to make us alive in righteousness. That’s the gospel. The spiritual state of actual Neanderthals hundreds of thousands of years before humans were created via evolution is inconsequential but fun to think about.

[@tarascoterry]

@@davidvartanian genesis is history not science. Science isn’t good at history. Adam is in the genealogy of Christ. So the gospels would say that Adam is as real (or fake) as Jesus.

[@byrondickens]

​@@tarascoterry Genesis is neither.

[@tarascoterry]

@@byrondickens I know you’re trolling, but the point is that it is written as history. You wouldn’t think Herodotus wrote history either.

[@byrondickens]

@@tarascoterry Genesis is not written as history and Bishop Wright's explanation makes that clear. Take a literature class. And a history class. Try to pay attention. You might learn something. You don't seem to know much about Herodotus either.

[@tarascoterry]

@@byrondickens You can tell how much I know about Herodotus from that? LOL. Good trolling is hard. Please reply that you’re a history professor. And a Hebrew literature professor. Throw in self-made millionaire for good measure. Hehe

[@garycpriestley]

A really good conversation.... which fails to answer most questions asked with any precision. My takeaway is that the words are not to be believed as its all story, allegory..... the "vibe"

[@JosiahTheSiah]

Yikes, that is not at all the takeaway I got! And I think Wright would quite sharply disagree with that.

[@slimdusty6328]

Good,and especially empathy, are possibly quite easy to explain within context of evolution. Even animal like buffalo still utilize a rudimental form of empathy, whenever they'll choose to stand together, when under attack from predators. Even seeming to care for any of their own that the predators have latched onto. N T Wright could be mistaken if he's been led to believe that evolution always completely cuts out all option for good. Goodness can simply be an ideal trait for survival sometimes. Human species might have become extinct if they'd not chosen to cooperate together . As they'd have likely been quickly overcome by predators, who'd have picked them off one by one, unless the human cooperated and stood beside one and other. Evolution doesn't necessarily "always" dictate a dog eat dog selfish style way of being. Even buffalo would likely all be extinct by now today too, unless they'd cooperate, and as such not live selfishly

[@kemicalhazard8770]

Most mammals with larger brains are actually quite interesting to observe, especially elephants, when it comes to the evolution of psychology like empathy. I think our cousins in the ape kingdom are pretty close to us too

[@TheMaxRandall]

it's almost if they were given these traits by a creator. hmm

[@kemicalhazard8770]

@@TheMaxRandall please no "intelligent design", it's just not interesting and profoundly unscientific

[@TheMaxRandall]

@kemicalhazard8770 I find it the most interesting thing ever. A being able to create every good thing we can perceive did so for no reason other to share it with me? While I don't have a "scientifically" driven mind, I'm not completely oblivious to the pursuit of knowledge, the definition of science.

[@slimdusty6328]

@@TheMaxRandallwell you might put it that way yes, but if it relates to species ability to survive, then its able to be explained easily enough through natural cause (Occam's razor). They can be noted to steal things , sometimes too, off another type of animal, so the creator hadn't been able to command them not to steal from thy neighbour? . Anyway, my point is that NT Wright and the people running this channel continue to promote a misinformed view whenever they make evolution out to be a theory that can only ever involve traits mean and nasty and things bad or a dog eat dog absolutely selfish type way of being. Because, if it would be that way then there's a number of species what would quite likely become extinct . The only way they still avoid extinction, even still today, is through cooperation which includes types of kindness and even acts of empathy

[@gusolsthoorn1002]

NT Wright has declared himself a staunch evolutionist. So when asking him questions about the literal understanding of Genesis the response will be obvious.

[@thirdparsonage]

While I'm open to the idea that the days of creation were not 24 hour days, it doesn't seem to me that this is only an American issue. I think for most average Christians the default assumption is that Genesis 1-11 is more or less what actually happened in a straightforward way. From what I've seen, it breaks down more along the lines of biblical scholars vs average Christians. One area that demonstrates that the more straightforward reading shouldn't be immediately discarded is the work of Dr. Michael Heiser with regard to the Sons of God in Gen. 6. Since Agustine the prevailing opinion was that the Sons of God were just sons of Seth and not beings from heaven, in part because it seems all superhero-y. The idea of giants who roamed the earth as the result of some weird sexual union between human women and angelic type beings seems really really bizarre. But it arguably makes the best sense of the whole of scripture. Not saying that means there actually was a talking snake literally in the garden. But I'm not sure it's a heck of a lot weirder than half-human giants.

[@HopeSmyrna]

I would agree that Wright sometimes comes across as a little, "Us Brits are far more sophisticated than those knuckle-dragging Americans across the pond."

[@PC-vg8vn]

But it's not even written as an historical narrative, particularly Genesis 1. That should be a hint.

[@thirdparsonage]

You're saying the entirety of 1-11? I realize the creation accounts have elements of poetry, and may in fact be exclusively poetic. The problem I've always had with reading 1-11 as merely myth is that there's a continuity of genealogy from beginning to end of the book that's fairly consistent. Even if they are completely made up, it seems to me the intent of the author was to communicate history in some sense. And also whenever somebody says that they not meant to be read as scienctific explanations of what happened, that almost certainly is the case. But neither are the gospels. From what I understand it was common for biographers to move events around on time to fit their point. But we still read them as essentially what happened. Not saying there's an exact equivalency between Genesis and and the Gospels, but I'm inclined to believe the first 11 chapters are reasonably accurate account of what happened.

[@alinaitwejulius5338]

Biblical stories that r always hard to understand; The creation story in particular the creation of Adam and Eve The story of Noah and the ark where by Noah manages to whisk all the animals on earth into a boat, a boat not a ship. A boat that housed elephants, lions, leopards rabbits, snakes, etc both carnivorous and omnivorous animals_ wonder how they kept that harmony if not by divine provision The story of Jews crossing the red sea and their 40 wondering years in the desert Jonah's story in the belly of a fish The virgin birth of Jesus, His miraculous life, His death and the weird claim by his disciples that He rose again

[@jenniferbate9682]

Yes, I see how human beings were made in genesis.

[@alinaitwejulius5338]

One question left out; if we r all descended from Adam and Eve, why is it that some humans don't have Neanderthal DNA Science attests that modern humans only appeared roughly 300kyrs ago and that this evolution of modern man began in East africa not somewhere in the middle East where most of us think is where the garden of Eden was located. Question is, at what point in earth's history did Adam and Eve exist? What was that "sixth day" on the scientific timeline in comparison to the biblical description as to when Adam was created. We see death in earth's geological records and the scientific testament is that death has been here for millions of years. So could there has been another cause of death on earth not Adam's sin and what could that have been

[@lisamason7190]

I would suggest that you read John Walton's books on the subject, as indicated in the video. He speaks to most of your questions here.

[@Dionysus3883]

Knowledge of good and evil is simply the ability to apprehend moral “oughts”. This ability is how we differentiate moral agents from amoral agents - we don’t treat lions, say, as moral agents when they kill something, any more than we say their prey was “an innocent victim”, for example. We treat humans as moral agents because we assume they are capable of appreciating moral reason to do or not do certain things. If Adam and Eve didn’t possess the knowledge of good and evil, then they weren’t moral agents. And if they weren’t moral agents, why were they held morally responsible for a decision they could not have understood as having moral consequences until they did it?

[@indigofenrir7236]

Eating or not eating the fruit wasn't a question of morality but of trust. Do you trust God when He says, "Do not eat or you will die"? Eve trusted for a time, until Satan told her not to trust God. Satan said, "Eat" so she did. She trusted Satan because the fruit "seemed tasty, looked good, and might make her as wise as God". These point to gluttony (lust of the flesh), covetousness (lust of the eyes), and pride, respectively: the three categories of sin. And Adam also fell for it. The fruit really didn't do anything but serve as a test of character for these two. Now when the Bible said, "Their eyes were opened", it meant they realized they did what was opposite to God's will: sin. They knew good from evil only because they did what was evil. Being naked doesn't speak of nudity, but rather being exposed to corruption because God's veil of holiness wrapping them was now gone. Because they ate, they will die, not immediately but rather eventually, because sin causes death: spiritual death. This is how salvation works. Jesus is still saying, "Trust Me," while Satan says "Don't trust Him." Salvation seeks to restore man's relationship with God through the opposite of what destroyed it: faith in God, along with a new veil of holiness: Jesus's righteousness. We trust in Jesus because He is the perfect Human for God and the perfect God for humans at the same time. So, do you trust Jesus and accept Him as your Lord and Savior, or would you choose Eve's mistake and choose to trust Satan?

[@Dionysus3883]

@@indigofenrir7236 that doesn’t even remotely answer the question. If Adam and Eve weren't moral agents, why were they held morally responsible for a choice they made outside of a moral framework? In other words, why were they treated as if they *knew* they were behaving immorally when they *didn’t know* what morality is? This is like jailing a bird for stealing bread from a table. It makes zero moral sense.

[@indigofenrir7236]

@@Dionysus3883 Morality is really just obedience or disobedience to the standard of good, which is God. That's why disobeying the 10 Commandments is sin: it is an amoral action. Adam and Eve had free will; they can choose to believe in God, or they can choose to believe in Satan. The fact they went against God's will shows that their decision wasn't God's will. God simply wanted them to choose Him when two options come: that's why the serpent was allowed in Eden. Unfortunately they obeyed the wrong choice. But God already knew they would screw up, which is why He worked with their mistake and gave them a second chance: Jesus. By believing in God and trusting Him again, humanity would be saved. Because Jesus is God, Jesus is morality. Now that humanity knows what is good and what is bad, they cannot plead ignorance when it comes to trusting God.

[@Dionysus3883]

@@indigofenrir7236 that doesn’t make sense. If disobeying the Ten Commandments is “amoral”, then disobeying is neither moral or immoral (that’s what “amoral” means). If disobedience is neither moral nor immoral, then it is neither good nor evil; neither wrong nor right. Disobedience towards God is utterly inconsequential, like breathing or digesting food, by your explanation.

[@indigofenrir7236]

@@Dionysus3883 Whoops, I meant immoral. Disobeying is immoral. The point of the 10 Commandments however isn't to be obeyed, but to show us what a life trusting Jesus is like. Murder? That breaks the 6th commandment, so that's not how a Christian should live. Salvation isn't in obeying God's rules but living with faith in Jesus, which is in loving God and neighbor, something of which the 10 Commandments only give an idea.

[@patrickjones2379]

"Maybe" seems to be dying a lot of heavy lifting in a lot of these answers. Especially regarding a complete abandonment of traditional original sin theology. The "fall" only works as an allegory in the context of evolutionary theory.

[@witherow777]

"19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now." Romans 8:19-22 ESV Trying to justify death before Adam & Eve absolutely chafes against the rest of Scripture. The death that came into the world is not merely a spiritual death, but it obviously is death in all its aspects. This is why Jesus' resurrection is not merely spiritual. He came alive in physical bodily presence as well.

[@stephenhirst9287]

John Lennox's "Seven days that divide the world" is much more satisfying than this.

[@JosiahTheSiah]

Yes, that is the nature of an entire book vs a short question & response interview. Wright mentioned a few books as well, perhaps you would be more satisfied with those?

[@PC-vg8vn]

I like Lennox but I dislike how he generally rejects evolution. I think he is yet another non-biologist who doesnt really understand it.

[@stephenhirst9287]

I'm not sure that John Lennox denies evolution. His "Seven days..." clip defends the possibility of long ages by detailed analysis of the Hebrew words of Genesis. I think he's in the Intelligent Design camp, which I'm comfortable with.

[@HW13590]

We are living in an era people hate God than any other era. I understand that fact clearly as it's mentioned in the bible.

[@gybx4094]

I agree with Theistic Evolution, but it does make Christian theology far more complicated. Instead of a Fall from perfection, it becomes an evolutionary gap between what we are and what we should be. Then Jesus bridges that gap between what we are and what God expects from us.

[@alandinsmore1186]

Deuteronomy 31 Our first parents ate the forbidden fruit in hopes of getting thereby the knowledge of good and evil; but it was a miserable knowledge they got, of good by the loss of it; and of evil by the sense of it; yet such is the compassion of God towards man that instead of giving him up to his own delusion, he has favoured him by his word with such a knowledge of good and evil as will make him happy if it be not his own fault.

[@mjack3521]

Covenant Creation. Covenant was broken and Covenant death entered (separation spiritually). Physical death was part of physical creation. Spiritual life is restoration of Covenant. We are now in the New Jerusalem. New Covenant. Made alive in Christ.

[@connieanderson7521]

How to you spell John Paukinghorn . I would like to look him up.

[@EmilyTodicescu]

John Polkinghorne

[@jeffreyrowe-mi3pc]

There are snakes in the garden because that's where snakes live.

[@flittedacrossmybrain8584]

@suzannedebusschere1607 I differ with you in your estimation of what's going on in this presentation. I find here an irony that's present in much (if not all) of Wright's answers to questions such as these: He seems to wish his listeners to regard his views as cogent, yet the more he holds forth, the more muddled his communication becomes. Furthermore, much of his content is set forth as "what we get wrong" about this subject or that subject (and, for Wright, there are more than of few such subjects). But let us set aside decorum for a moment and get right down to it: It is entirely possible that N.T. Wright has a dog that can smell something that nobody else's dog can smell; no one can deny that possibly outright. However, if Wright does indeed have a dog that can smell something that nobody else's dog can smell, THAT'S ONE MIGHTY RARE DOG.

[@tomrhodes1629]

Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: You will never understand the Genesis account until Whole Spirit ("the Holy Spirit") reveals it to you, as has been done for - and through - me. THE TALKING SERPENT IN THE GARDEN REPRESENTS AN IRRATIONAL IDEA. And Adam represents ALL fallen souls who chose to partake of "the tree of (irrational) knowledge of Go(o)d and (d)evil." All mysteries have been unveiled in these "end times": the end of the old Cycle of Time that the New Cycle may be born. Those who desire Truth will seek and they will find. And I've given you all that you need in order to do so.

[@bonnie43uk]

I have a question for NT Wright. Q: If i clean my vacuum cleaner, does that make me a vacuum cleaner? The bag is full and i need to know.

[@infiniti28160]

The serpent did not give knowledge for mankinds upliftment, but for the exaltation of itself. Proverbs 24:20 Narcissists suffer from a mental disordering, they are void of light within. We are stars wrapped in skin, the light you seek has always been within. Rumi. Job 38 : 31 - 33. This points to the celestial sphere, it has your psyches development depicted. Instar is a caterpillar and goes through many stages, until it pupates and then emerges as the imago. Good luck and take care. Mashallah ibn Athari and Wuxing will both give insight.

[@carlandre8610]

Sin was dead and in the Garden. From the start. Sin had no power, it only has an affect when it is activated. Death and life were in the garden eternal life was not activated in the garden.Adam and Eve were banished before they could activate eternal life in their fallen state I.e. dead to God.

[@TheOtiswood]

It's quite interesting that from the comments here, those who don't believe in God think Tom is jumping through hoops to make God feasible and those who believe in a literal Genesis, (as I do), thinks he is jumping through hoops to reconcile The Bible with evolution. SO the big conversation goes on.

[@byrondickens]

Yep. And neither gets it.

[@TheOtiswood]

@@byrondickens "Yep. And neither gets it." What do you think it is then?

[@tarascoterry]

Because NT is trying to “have his cake and eat it too”. Adam is in the geology of Christ. The gospels treated Genesis like history (not science). Any decent skeptic and “true believer” can spot an obvious compromise. So the only people that buy this nonsense are people that want to best represent their own faithlessness with such scholarly prose.

[@RKPT9]

I have thought about the meaning of death after eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge and I think that they would now become conscious of their impending end. We are the only things on this planet that contemplate a beginning and an end. They were going to die before but now they know.

[@PC-vg8vn]

strictly speaking you dont actually know that about other animals.

[@RKPT9]

@@PC-vg8vn Are you making the claim that animals contemplate their impending death like humans do?

[@PC-vg8vn]

@@RKPT9 I am saying that we humans simply dont know what animals think. Sometimes humans can be rather arrogant towards others of God's creatures.

[@RKPT9]

@@PC-vg8vn yes I agree humanity can be arrogant towards everything but I know that we share a certain sense of self awareness that produces a consciousness capable of a religious experience and relationship with the knowledge of our creator. We are different for whatever the significance may be.

[@grayhalf1854]

We are animals.

[@robertjasso6673]

John Levison at Harvard! Wow! In light of the vociferous antisemitic atmosphere there I hope he and his course is allowed to proceed.

[@sonyyung5510]

I don't think one can honestly agree with the Ideology of evolution in regards to the Bible. It gives time, where God's power would be a much better and plain explanation. Evolution puts the creation before God, as Satan would have it. It is a deception that seeks to take true scientific facts, reinterpret them into something not true at all, and to hold the new"truth" as more true than the real truth of God's word. Yes it is true that Genesis holds a lot of poetic like language that one must not take only literally, as doing so would defeat the purpose of understanding God's word in Spirit first. At the same time this does not mean that the bare essentials of Genesis are somehow in the backdrop of the unchecked death of Evolution. The truthful history of Genesis lies in the words of Jesus in the new Testament. Since Jesus is the Word of God, his interpretation of God's word is the most valid of all. As is said in the book of Matthew, he references Genesis but also applies it to real life because it not only relevant to it but it was apart of it from the beginning. In Matthew 19: 4-5, Jesus says, "4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" This confirms he is treating the nature of marriage as beginning with the first man and first women, as if they are it's first real participants. In Matthew 23:35, he says, "so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah…”. He recognizes Abel, and compares Zechariah to him as well. Here he acknowledges that there has been blood spilled from Abel to Zechariah. Zechariah was a real man, thus it stands to reason that Abel is as well. In Matthew 24:37-39 He says, "For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” Here he acknowledges that not only was Noah real and that wickedness of men was throughout all the land during his time, but that last days will reflect those days as well. Well we're in the last days now, and the evidence shows that Jesus was in fact right about the wickedness of men in these times. In Colossians 1:15-23 it reads, "15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. 21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation- 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant." What need would there be for a good God to reconcile all things to himself if creation was not corrupted during the fall due to sin and death? What use is the blood of Jesus if he is not considered the 2nd Adam, firstborn of all creation, and the firstborn among the dead? You're correct to assume that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not enough, for that is surface level reading. Yet, to assume genesis is merely metaphor and not historical truth in some sense, is nonsense. You are correct that we don't know the specific timeframe of creation. Numbers in scripture are often more symbolic than literal. At the same time, the logical sequence of creation is still true. If it is illogical to assume the days of creation are a literal 24hr days, then why would it make anymore sense to add millions of years to that as well? Or to add the death and evolution of species so far before Adam was created? Would not Occam's razor beg us to see that it would be much more simpler and reasonable for God to make the Garden and all of creation functional from the start?

[@analizandoliteratura9958]

Asking "why there was a snake on genesis" ? Is like asking "why Pinochio had a father"?

[@rodzalez3549]

False equivalency

[@Tim.Foster123]

I'm curious why Wright thinks 6-day Creation is a unique to America. Everywhere I go in Africa, everyone affirms 6-day Creation. Maybe Wright needs to go to Africa for a bit.

[@grantbartley483]

If I say 'ad hominem is the argument of the lesser mind' am I arguing ad hominem? If not, it appears to be what most atheists do in comment sections on theistic videos. Maybe this means you.

[@markd3250]

Second question: Is Genesis (especially the first few chapters) literally true or not? The answer is look at the source; GOD gave that information to Moses who wrote it down in Genesis. It has nothing to do with Egypt or the middle east. God told Moses what happened before those places even existed. The 6 days of creation weren't 24 hour solar/earth days, because creation began before those things even existed. We simply don't know how long a creation day was, and unless God tells us, there's no way TO know. So yes, if you believe and trust in God (which is an issue Adam and Eve had, and we're their descendants, so it's an issue we've inherited), then you believe God is competent and what he told Moses to write down wasn't a fiction, poetry, or just a story. It isn't even symbolic. It's an incredibly brief and efficient account of what took place. That right there is one of the hallmark characteristics of God; he doesn't ramble on like men of science and the knowledge of good and evil do.

[@a.t.6322]

The Bible has nothing to do with science

[@grantbartley483]

Except for inspiring science in the first place.

[@jenniferbate9682]

?

[@grantbartley483]

@@jenniferbate9682 All the original scientists were Christians. They did it to understand the glory of God in creating the world.

[@HopeSmyrna]

Ironically, the question about Genesis 1 came from a fellow Brit. Brother Wright, are you telling me that no one in Britain, Australia, Ireland, and Scotland, ever struggled with whether or not Genesis 1 is literal or metaphorical? I genuinely am turned off by your comments about Americans being the only ones concerned about this issue. It sounds a little like, Britain-is-better-than-America, arrogance.

[@PC-vg8vn]

but we are! Only joking.

[@eus38io]

Is easier than that. Both stories of creation. Gen 1 and Gen 2 are myths. When the Bible put them one after the other is saying that.

[@danblackwelder5261]

The reason was to eat the mice.

[@sebastianbache8862]

Death is not the evidence of sin. You need to say this because your story presents a contradiction, the resurrection. Belief in sin makes you your own god. You pick and choose who to judge and condemn. You are a contradiction, too. You say your god is conditional like you. That means you are incompatible with Jesus, who is humanity and we are like him because of our unconditional love without fear we did not teach. Ee come with it on our birth. You are not like him and us anymore. You gave away your unconditional love for a bowl of fear. Your priceless soul for a promise. We already come with eternal life and our purpose is a test on trust. Whose love did you follow? Your own from a place that appears eternal to us. A place where there is only unconditional love, and a place without fear. Or, did you follow a fear posing as love on one condition.That you judge WHETHER someone is deserving or not. THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF UNCONDITIONAL LOVE!!!!! 🩷🧡💛💚💙🩵💜❤️

[@bevanbasson4289]

Why did they and the rest of humanity get such a harsh punishment? They only had the knowledge of good and evil after they ate the fruit. Before the must have been extremely naive, seems a bit harsh to me.

[@EmilyTodicescu]

Eastern Orthodox theologians are of the opinion that God would have _eventually_ given this fruit to Adam and Eve. That is, when they had gained sufficient maturity in order to be able to eat and gain this particular “way of knowing” without it corrupting them. And don’t forget that there was another tree in the garden, the Tree of Life. Which means that so long as they were in Eden, they had access to immortality. Being cast out of the garden was actually a merciful act on the part of God, otherwise if they’d gone on to eat the fruit from The Tree of Life, they would have remained trapped permanently in their corrupted, fallen state. So it makes sense that there is Tree of Life imagery in the ministry of Jesus - he alone provides the key to restoration and the pathway that was originally intended for Adam and Eve.

[@JD-ro7xe]

It seems owe our existence to that darned snake.

[@cadamham]

Who created the walking snake? Was he Christ?

[@Rogue-nc3pl]

It is a story and myth.

[@stevenwhite8937]

There wasn’t a snake in the garden. There was as Genesis says a beast of the field…. I.e a creature that walked on four legs….

[@IosifStalin2]

Why was God so obsessed with the Middle East and completely ignored all the other poor people in India, China, the Pacific, the Americas, Africa and the Artics?

[@byrondickens]

@@IosifStalin2 Never occurred to you people, did it, that perhaps the divine reveals itself to different groups of people in different ways more culturally appropriate to them?

[@IosifStalin2]

@@byrondickens ahhhhhh Theology…there’s lots to see

[@PC-vg8vn]

and yet through the Jews and Jesus from the Middle East, millions from those countries have come to believe in the God of Abraham. Isnt that odd...

[@IosifStalin2]

@@PC-vg8vn through conquest , oppression and mucho death. If you want mainly peaceful spread, ask the Buddhists how to do it

[@willard73]

Why was there a snake in the garden?

[@paulrawlinson8653]

Jesus H Christ. Just so much hand waving and obfuscation. It's poetry, it says 4 or 5 things at once as only poetry can... It's unclear, vague, and contradictory, and presents the only knowledge of (this) God that we have, which necessarily means our knowledge of God is unclear, vague, and contradictory. Making any positive claims on his behalf ( including his existence) is wholly unreliable

[@lemnisgate8809]

The death that entered the world was not physical death physical death has always been apart of the natural order the death that entered the world was separation from God. That death, that separation from God has lead to violence bloodshed and futility. The life Jesus restored is reconciliation with God those who believe God live by his principles of which the first is love, love ends violence bloodshed and futility.

[@ritawing1064]

It's all very well having well-meaning types like N.T.Wright on this channel, but there are also some very dodgy types being invited on to push their extremist right wing agendas: folk like the good bishop might like to think about into what company he is being brought - or is "Unbelievable" (premier or plain) actually a political channel rather than the religious apologetic one it purports to be?

[@hopsterlynongkhlaw8521]

According to the bible, all animals can communicate with human

[@cryptojihadi265]

I'd love to see THAT verse.

[@franklongo4970]

Atheism does not rid the world evil; within the unwillingness to believe in God, evil still remains. To say that it does not, is a dangerous, pathological form of wishful thinking.

[@PacesIII]

1. The snake wasn't Satan. 2. God is the root of all evil, as he created it. Being omniscient, he would have been fully aware of the results of his every action and inaction.

[@EmilyTodicescu]

1. Isaiah refers to this being as “Helel ben Shachar”. Jesus said: “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven”. Lastly, Revelation 12:9: “And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world - he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.” So it’s long been understood that the serpent was indeed Ha-Satan (The Adversary). 2. The only way for evil to never have existed was for God to not allow humans or divine beings any free will. But he didn’t want programmed automatons, even though he had the foreknowledge that some would exercise their free will by turning away from God, and wanting to “do their own thing”. So no, God is not the root of all evil. Rather, it is those who not only turn away from God, but incite others to turn away from God (because in their pride they want to take God’s place). THAT is the source of all evil.

[@Jazzfestn]

"Why is there a SNAKE in" your CHURCH?! Why are there snakes in your FAMILY?!

[@ourclarioncall]

Oh dear Was he influenced by Hugh Ross ?

[@drmanojkumarkhatore4476]

The greatest tragedy of Christianity today is that they spend much to prove Jesus' historicity. However, they completely ignore what Jesus would do if he were alive (in them) today. ❤ Whether you like it or not, the snake is alive and active in the church today. Imagine producing a movie worth millions of dollars on Jesus' historicity. Then, presenting it -heartlessly- to poor and hungry African children in exchange of a meal. The children will cherish the meal and may like the Jesus of the movie. Even so, if we just live like Jesus -doing what he did and saying what he said- the movie would be redundant. Anybody, would want to join the loving, loyal, living, compassionate Jesus (in us). Hypocrites! They (many Christian preachers) spend more money on their travels than to feed hungry people and help the needy. Then, they conduct conferences to discuss why and how Jesus fed the five thousand. ❤

[@jamesmcgrory6391]

As a Christian, as smart as this guy clearly is (IQ no doubt higher than mine), he seems to be trying with great effort to explain that which can never convincingly be explained, if not to me, certainly not to atheists. I leaned some time ago that you can’t come to Christ scientifically (I have two degrees in the sciences). Conversion is a supernatural event, and Christian belief is founded in faith, not empirical proof. This makes no sense to atheists, and I totally understand that. Trying to reconcile all of this is admirable but ultimately somewhat futile. That’s my take, for what little it’s worth :)

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

Yeah; belief without evidence, virtue-free life wasting.

[@byrondickens]

@@Dr.Ian-Plect Does your wife love you? Prove it.

[@Dr.Ian-Plect]

@@byrondickens Pathetically clueless. Muted.

[@tedgrant2]

I don't expect to make any money from posting a response, so I won't

[@tkthomas3489]

The idea of the name “GOD” is about prompting the Psyche to GO aheaD. The story of Adam and Eve at the centre of the garden is relevant to every single Psyche taking decision in how to handle future. If garden is taken as the Psyche’s own life its centre is the present moment where the trees of PAST and FUTURE are planted together, temporally. Trees at centre of the garden yield fruits to the Psyche. The tree of the PAST yields the fruit of experience of good and evil. The memory aids the Psyche in categorising the experience (the environment/ neighbourhood) into good and evil. By eating the fruit of the tree of PAST, the Self (SA) MAtures and becomes SMArt in handling the environment (TA/ oTHer). The combination of elemental sounds SA and MA to SMA, becomes a true representative of the SMArt Psyche. SATan at the centre of the garden (NOW) entices the Psyche to eat the fruit of the tree of PAST and become like GOD.! SATan prompts the Psyche to utilise SATH (equivalent of TRUTH in Indian languages) to replace GOD. At the centre of the garden (ie. the present moment) SATan advises the Psyche that the limitlessness GOD can be achieved by utilising SATH (സത് / perception of TRUTH/ knowledge collectively gained by SMAs until NOW). SATan suggests the Psyche that it need not fear the uncertainty (fruit of the tree of FUTURE) across the moment , nor it needs to have FAITH in the Almighty to counter the fear of uncertainty (fruit of the tree of FUTURE). SATan prompts the Psyche to be RATIONAL and avoid FAITH. Against the expressed wish of GOD to have the friendship (abide in Me I’ll abide in you) with the Psyche, the SMArt Psyche (SMA) opts RATIONALITY and avoids FAITH in (friendship will) God (as Eve and Adam did). SMA protects itself with MA (my MAturity, my knowledge, my money/ my heritage / whatever is reckoned as mine) my RATIONALITY. RATIONAL Psyche follows SATan in eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge (PAST experiences) and becomes like God (fearless about the uncertainty of FUTURE) through RATIONALITY. RATIONAL ? To understand the meaning of the meaning of the expression “RATIONAL “ we may proceed from the meaning of elemental sounds used in the creation of the word. SMA the SMArt Psyche RA (repeatedly) interacts with TA (oTHer) to take advantage of TA ( neighbor) with MA, my knowledge gained until the centre of garden of my life (the present moment). SMArtness is merely the exploitation of the exploitable neighbor (little neighbor/ powerless neighbor/ less knowledgeable neighbor). “MA“ the knowledge gained until NOW enables the Psyche to better the interactive pattern to sustain the exploitation of the little neighbor. RATAionaLA RATA iona LA ? RATA (repetition observed in the environment until the present moment / truth perception derived from the observation of repetition in the PAST) is “iona “ through “LA”. “ Iona “ : is a combination of vowels suffixed by the sound NA. Sound “na” at the end of an expression creates a verb/ verbal noun/ word of activation of the preceding expression/ capability to act according to the preceding expression). “ioNA” is capability for the idea of “io”/ a combination of vowels. Vowels indicate the position / direction of movement with respect to the speaker. The expression “io” should be about the forward movement. “RATA iona “ should be about the about the capability of RATA (truth perception developed in the PAST) to move forward through “LA”. LA ? Elemental sound LA is in the formation of words about natural limit of various things in various languages. Of observation LA, the natural limit is the present moment. The Psyche observes upto LA, the natural limit. RATIONAL (RATAionaLA) means the TRUTH (sath/ MA, my knowledge) of PAST will remain TRUE in future too. This hypothesis aids SMA to avoid FAITH in GOD and be self sufficient with own RATIONALITY. Though GOD without any LA (EL/ eh LA? / whEre LA ? / whEn LA ? /… Omni features of Almighty Creator God is fit in the combination Eh LA / EL) wishes to have the friendship of the individual Psyche, doesn’t enforce the friendship through the Omnipotence. God lets the Psyche have his/her way of RATIONAL self dependence, though the sincere advice is to avoid the fruits of the trees at the centre. SMAs are in perennial conflict of taking advantage of the neighbor. Rationally bred Caine took the rationally perfect decision of eliminating Abel , for ensuring own “survival, excellence and supremacy “. RATA (truth derived from the observation of repetition in the environment in the PAST) is “might is right / survival of the fittest…” is iona LA . Caine acted according to the RATIONALITY of the Kingdom of EARTH, and survived over Abel. DEATH ? Caine did not die. He survived over the weak brother Abel by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge ! DEATH ? MOrtality / MArana ? We might be able to understand Jesus’ phrase “ let the DEAD bury their dead, you follow ME” (if at all you wish to create the Kingdom of HEAVEN at hand). DEAD ? Two trees at the centre of garden of life . Tree of PAST and Tree of FUTURE. Biblical names.: Tree of KNOWLEDGE. and Tree of LIFE. The tree of KNOWLEDGE (PAST experiences) produces the fruit: (fruit of knowledge of good and evil/ SASTRAM/ ശാസ്ത്രം).: which enables the Psyche to become Godlike (fearlessness to face the uncertainty across LA, the present moment)as SATan entices. or MOrtality as God warns. MOrtality/ മരണം/ MArana ? It’s easier to decipher the word MArana (Indian equivalent of DEATH/ MOrtality) for the purpose of differentiating Jesus’ DEAD burying dead “. MArana : MA rana: MA ( MA of SMA is the MAturity arrived by the Psyche by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge / perfect truth arrived at the Eve of LA/ truth of PAST ritualised / systematised for everyone’s use) . rana activation (suffix na ) of the idea “RA” (repetition). RANA of MA is perpetuation of MA (PAST truth). MArana means stagnation at MA. MOrtality / MArana should be about the stagnation at MA (ritualised knowledge gained collectively by SMAs until the eve of LA). DEAD burying their dead..should be about DEAD (those who are deft in rituals / those who prefer RATIONALITY to FAITH) may carry out the rituals of burying their dead. If at all you are interested in abandoning the Kingdom of EARTH and interested in the creation of Kingdom of HEAVEN at hand, you may take your cross of annihilating your RATIONALITY and follow ME. Unless BORN AGAIN (regained the FAITH of newborn Psyche /SA ) none (NONE) can see the Kingdom of HEAVEN. Jesus preached “HEAVEN at hand”. AT HAND : right here right now around the BORN AGAIN Psyche. In the Kingdom of EARTH at hand MArana (stagnation at MA the perfection at the Eve of LA) rules through rituals (system / procedures/ protocols/ laws , canons/ …). Unless one consciously decides to abandon the stagnation of RATIONALITY (MArana/ MOrtality) none can see LIFE (the real progress) . See the Kingdom of HEAVEN at hand by being BORN AGAIN. SATan stagnates the Psyche through rituals(RATA iona LA). GOD prompts the Psyche to GO aheaD beyond MA by stepping in to the uncertainty across LA in FAITH. Within the peels of uncertainty across LA the BORN AGAIN would find the fruit of LIFE. GOD GUides GUards the solitary journey (YAN/ journey) of the BORN AGAIN (SA) without the crutches of MA through the narrow gate , narrow path to create new relationship with TA. SAYAN (science/ Scientific Temper) for SA+TA (സത് / sath / the new relationship between SA&TA / the futuristic truth). The new relationship Jesus calls Kingdom of God at hand (AGAPE now here). Kingdom of HEAVEN at hand (സയൻ/ SAYAN / SCIENTIFIC TEMPER now here). HEAVENward mutation of the attitude of the Psyche on being BORN AGAIN. Real LIFE founded on FAITH. Whereas the Kingdom of EARTH at hand is SATan’s decoy to take the SPIritually natured Psyche to the Kingdom of HELL at hand. The multitude opting the highway of RATIONALITY is doomed to stagnation (MArana) and when disappointed by the futility of maintaining MA ( the burden of maintaining the perfection of the Eve of LA) the Psyche falls into depression and mindless (HA) annihilation of MA at hand (LA) now here. SPRiritully (spiting rituals) natured cannot be bound by rituals and annihilating HELL is the reality of the present moment to which SATan takes the Psyche deceptively to. Unless BORN AGAIN none can see the Kingdom of HEAVEN at hand. Life / progress/ journey beyond MA is SAyan / scientific temper. LIFE/ SCIENCE is founded on FAITH. SNake at the centre of the garden. ! The Psyche which opts RATIONALITY to guide through LA,, the natural limit of observation is opting the Kingdom of EARTH at hand. SNake slithers on the surface of EARTH, unable to lift itself above MA, (my EARTH on which the Psyche grounds itself for traversing across LA). MA (my knowledge gathered collectively by SMAs until the eve of LA) is the EARTH of SMA (SMArt Psyche). SMA is the King of the Kingdom of EARTH at hand. Which simply means SMA (SMArt Psyche) attempts to exploit TA in every possible way . The idea of the elemental sound “MA” of SMA (SMArt Psyche) is the interactive pattern developed by the Psyche on the basis of my knowledge updated until the eve of LA (the present moment/ fruit of the tree of knowledge at the centre of the garden of life of the Psyche). “MA” is utilised by SMA as the protective fence as well as the progressive mechanism. This feature of “MA” of imbibing (E flow inward) of RTH (truth of PAST observations of repetition) and utilising it for gaining control over (A outward flow of RTH) the little neighbor is expressed as E A RTH.

[@tkthomas3489]

SNake ? At the centre of the garden of LIFE of the Psyche ? Snake ? “SANA” AE K Self’s effort (SN) for aCTivity (KA) results in mere AE (wriggling on the surface of EARTH). SNake is unable to move beyond the sinusoidal movement. Similarly SMA (the SMArt Psyche) who believes in the RATIONALITY and becomes a part of the Kingdom of EARTH at hand is unable to move beyond MA (ultimate knowledge gained until the eve of LA/ the present moment/ ). “EA” of EARTH and “AE” of snAke (sn AE k) maybe compared to make sense out of struggle of the Psyche (SMA) who believes in the RATIONALITY of the Kingdom of EARTH at hand. “AE” of SMA means it operates within the limits of MA (or SMA is unable to move beyond the limits of MA ). Comparing with Jesus’ statement “unless born again NONE can see the Kingdom of HEAVEN “ (or in other words “unless BORN AGAIN every RATIONALLY MAture SMA is doomed to slither on EARTH”). RATIONALITY is the inherited feature of the Psyche (SMA) because of which SMAs are in perennial conflict attempting to ostracise and overpower the neighbourhood. This natural trait of the self (SA) to bring IN worth from the little neighbour is termed SIN. SIN is natural to every individual Psyche. SMArtness is the noble name of the exploitation of the little (powerless / exploitable) neighbor. SMA writhing in “the Kingdom of EARTH at hand “ cannot see “the Kingdom of GOD/ HEAVEN at hand “ Jesus Christ declares emphatically. The Kingdom of GOD envisioned by Jesus Christ is the attitude of treating the little neighbor as King God. AGAPE right now right around the BORN AGAIN. Being BORN AGAIN is the attitudinal of SMA from being the Master (King) of neighbourhood to being the voluntary slave of the neighbourhood (treating even the hitherto exploited little neighbour as King God). This mutation is the result of solemn conscious decision for taking up own cross of nullifying MA,my RATIONALITY. The mutated BORN AGAIN Psyche (SA) steps across LA in FAITH into the uncertainty and creating new unprejudiced relationship with TA. The new relationship is called Jesus Christ as 1) the Kingdom of God at hand 2) the Kingdom of HEAVEN at hand. The consciously mutated HEAVENward SPIrituality saves the Psyche from the reality of the Kingdom of HELL at hand.

[@mikekennedy8501]

I don't disagree so much against Science. I disagree that the Bible states the Universe is young

[@rontommy50]

With great respect, but does it? I listen to people from both, young earth and old earth perspectives whom I respect, and it seems to me it is all a matter of interpretation, with many mysteries to pray about.

[@ejenkins4711]

I had a few pretty intence psychological and physical experiences were i felt i had incountered the devil, any christian i spoke to wouldn't engage and cant afford therapist

[@ourclarioncall]

Anyone who seriously pursues God will encounter spiritual warfare . That’s why we have spiritual armour! And yes , depending on what church you go to many or most will look at you like your weird or have 3 heads, because they are either not born again or are not mature in faith or have been pumped full of fear regarding cessasionism or other things. When a Christian has experiences like this the best thing they can do is to share them, but that’s hard to do if peolle won’t listen.

[@ourclarioncall]

If you can tell us details like what happened , any context of it happening, how long you have been a Christian etc , then folk might be able to give you good counsel. I am kind of Pentecostal/ Charismatic ish and know there is a lot of error and extremes coming into the churches so you have to be careful with who you listen to. But also some other types of churches fall into the ditch at the opposite side of the road and won’t tackle issues like spiritual warfare

[@ejenkins4711]

@@ourclarioncall that would be kind of you. Im not sure where to begin

[@ourclarioncall]

@@ejenkins4711 start at the start. I’m assuming that at some point you have been born again after hearing the gospel and realised you’re a sinner on your way to hell and that you heard the good news of God sending Christ to die for you and you repented and put your faith in him to save you. But that’s just an assumption. I don’t know anything about you so maybe you could tell us some detail along these lines

[@ejenkins4711]

@@ourclarioncall no mate i have not yet met a christian that will talk about cgjung, these days i dont bother much

[@theotherme4120]

Wait, he believes humans evolved?

[@rodanteluzon1304]

There are many words spoken and...twisting.

[@Xenosaurian]

I'm just hearing a lot of incoherent rambling that doesn't really make sense of anything.

[@seanpierce9386]

He never answers any of the questions and just deflects to what he knows, which is history. Q. Does science contradict the Genesis account? A. Talks about rationalism, the enlightenment, and the rise of deep time. Q. Is the Genesis account literal or metaphorical? A. Points to how the Genesis reflects the temple tradition, then talks about how this question became a problem in the West. Q. Does evolution contradict the Fall? A. Talks about how the Fall reflects the Israelites’ exile. Q. Why would God banish mankind if He also blessed them? A. Discusses problems with stoicism and atheism (which are not actually problems because they define morality differently). Q. Did sin come into the world through Adam? What really happened in ‘the Fall’? A. He vaguely outlines an “original pair” and “tree” and “snake”, whatever they are. Then he suggests that God didn’t really know what He was doing. He hesitates to conclude that Satan was actually involved but something like that must have happened. Q. How is Adam and Eve’s disobedience a punishable sin? A. He thinks it was more of a learning experience. This is the closest we get to an actual answer. He doesn’t mention the consequences or the fact that God intentionally lied to prevent them from becoming like Him (or “us”).

[@midlander4]

How to not answer the question for almost an hour

[@sunnyjoseph6557]

The answers are not straight. He says more than answer the Qs

[@davidbuddrige6992]

Consider the story in Genesis 2. What is this story about? I reckon it is describing an event that occurred in real history, but it is describing something that happened in the human heart, rather than in human biology. It is (among other things) defining key concepts that then appear repeatedly through the rest of the Bible. In particular, the idea of “life” and “death”. What does it mean to be “alive” and what does it mean to “die”? Consider that in the original covenant command from God, Adam is told that he would “die” the very day he broke the covenant (Genesis 2:16-17) However what happened when they reneged on the terms of the deal? They didn’t physically drop dead on that day. What *did* happen is that they were ejected from the garden (and from their special relationship with God). That is what “die” *means* in that context. Without the special relationship - and its promise of blessing - they became subject (again) to the natural processes, and would (eventually) also physically die. But the “death” that the Genesis was describing had already occurred. This is why Ephesians chapter 2, verse 1 can tell us we were “dead in our tresspasses and sins” - even though we were biologically alive before becoming Christians. If that is what “death” means, then “life” is the opposite - gaining (or having) the relationship with God, and it leads back to the tree of life. Personally, I reckon Genesis 2 is describing (something like) the moment when the biological species “homo sapien” first became aware of God and their special relationship with him, which came with a promise of blessing - and thereby became “alive”. Thus, the biological species homo-sapien may have been (and probably was) around for some time before God initiated a relationship with these creatures and thereby made them “alive”. It *might* also be that the other biological humans are sons of Adam the way modern Gentile Christians are “sons of Abraham” - not by biology but by a shared spirit. However, my inclination is to think that all modern humans share a biological as well as spiritual link to Adam, but because of the Abraham example, no theology is broken if this could be demonstrated not to be the case (that we have a biological link). Of course, there is not sufficient information to make a definitive call on this, but the key feature of the Genesis account is our spiritual origins, not our biological origins. It is primarily interested in the origin of our relationship with God. Genesis 1 similarly is describing 6 days in God’s management office - in which he orders a universe to exist - not 6 days in the universe. The universe he ordered to exist had a time dimension (at least) 14.5 billion years long - but God spent 6 days in his office ordering it to exist, just like I spent many days in my builders office ordering my house to exist by giving my builder the specifications - such as number of bedrooms, or the size of the kitchen. The order in which I ordered those things, and the time I spent ordering them, bore no connection to the order in which they were assembled on the ground. The point of Genesis 1 of course was to demonstrate that Yahweh was in charge - and not Pharaoh - who regarded himself as the image of the god Atum.

[@pissanukatika3720]

Jewish books are telling tales,done are true some are false.God did not write books,but by men,snd men’s words.

[@velcroman11]

The snake was in the garden as a practice run before going to the US in the 2020’s as Trump.

[@steps2truth6885]

I chose to take the bible as the infallible word of God as it is the only way it makes sense of this world. You do not have to be an intellectual to believe. I did not find this interview helpful and I could not listen to it all. I prefer Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis.

[@ALANJohnnaveenchandar]

Know ye men, that no one Knows what God is, and no human can express, for, far beyond his intelligence and science, is all that He is..try to use the simple tools given, don't find fault, know that you can err, and do not err., for you will go far away from Him, questioning everything ..

[@encouragementforewe]

Who would say he is their favorite theologian??? The man has a unbiblical view of justification, for crying out loud.

[@unclerhombus]

There wasn’t a “snake” in the garden. There was a serpent, but prior to the curse it didn’t look as a serpent or snake does today.

[@AtheismActually]

Oh, sure, the omniscient Ground of Being needs to "dare we say, experiment". 🙄

[@grantbartley483]

It's more a demonstration than an experiment. Of love, justice, good and evil, inter alia, ending with the creation of co-heirs with Christ, and destruction of the destructive influences. In general, it's for the greater demonstration of the glory of God. Why else would he create a world like this? I mean, duh.

[@IosifStalin2]

This is very embarrassing but I guess Theology can explain anything and everything…..wow…..if Benito had some of this caliber, he’d be the new Caesar.

[@tedclemens4093]

The main difference between Creationism and evolutionist thinking, is that the first is purposeful, the other is accidental. If creation is purposeful, consider the biblical account to be one of explaining that purpose rather than the particulars of the mechanics.

[@christopheespic]

So, you believe in a "guided" evolution of species to fulfill God's plan?

[@tedclemens4093]

​@@christopheespic The mechanics of creation are of little interest to me compared to why "eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" was singled out.

[@Theunspokentruth77]

How do you know Darwin didn't have a purpose in his mind? He could have purpose of destroying God because he himself could have loved sins.

[@patrickjones2379]

@Theunspokentruth77 Darwin was an avid Christian who followed the evidence as he saw it, and felt guilt when he thought that evidence was contrary to doctrine. Also, why would that be relevant to the actual theory? Darwin has been dead and the theory has been validated for a very long time and by millions of observations and fulfilled predictions.

[@AbeyAndrews]

Wasted my time on this. Nothing answered. Only a lot of BS.

[@KrisMaertens]

The talking snake was there to make clear it was a fairytale like jungle book...