Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Wednesday, February 03, 2010


The Right Reverend N.T. Wright explains to us dunder headed literalists, why Genesis chapters 1 through 3 can't mean what we think they mean:

N.T. Wright on Adam and Eve

You see: It doesn't matter how wack-a-doodle your take on the Bible is or how many illogical, grammatical inconsistencies it causes with the details of the text, if you speak with an erudite British sounding accent, you are never to be questioned.



Blogger The Seeking Disciple said...

Wright said "We must read Genesis for all its worth" and then turned around and said that he felt it was "unfair" to take Genesis 1-3 literally. How can this be? I believe that to twist Genesis 1-3 to conform to "modern science" rather than taking the word of God literally here is a failure to read Genesis for all its worth.

Further, Wright seems to imply that such debates about the literalness of Genesis 1-3 is foolish and "an American" phenomonon rather than a biblical issue. As the late Dr. Henry Morris correctly observed: "A failure to take Genesis 1-11 literally leads not just to biblical issues and problems but opens the door to cultural and sociological issues as well."

1:57 PM, February 03, 2010  
Blogger steve said...

"If you speak with an erudite British sounding accent, you are never to be questioned."

But, Fred, that's why they make such swell cinematic villains. Whenever a Hollywood director wants a classy villain, he casts an elegant, haughty British actor with an Oxbridge accent to play the part. Just think of Wright as the ecclesiastical counterpart to Christopher Lee in the role of Saruman. The ring of power and all that good stuff.

6:20 PM, February 03, 2010  
Blogger Highland Host said...

Wright therefore has less of an advantage over here, where we have Evangelical pastors who can speak in erudite British accents too (such as myself).

1:43 AM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Charles E. Whisnant said...

I have been amazed how many Christian people will believe science over the Word in Genesis. Having now used MacArthur's Creation series, too many of the people in the church do not agree with the literal Creation as stated in Scripture. That is alarming for sure.

5:11 AM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Hi Fred,

Take a look at this post and attending thread. It's titled "Is Adam Real?" and there are two arguments that I'd like your opinion on:

(1) One can deny the historicity of Adam and still be an inerrantist.

(2) The denial of the historicity of Adam has little to no Gospel implications or impact.

I look forward to your reasoned thoughts.


7:07 AM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I think Steve is correct in his conclusion. Adam and Eve had to be real people, because their sin had and still has real consequences with humanity. Like the first commenter stated under that Logman video, "basically, I am a sinner because of what some character in a story did?" I thought that was a brilliant refutation to this whole nonsense that Genesis is just a big allegory.

As for your first question, I personally think to deny the historical Adam one cannot hold to inerrancy, at least with any honest consistency.

8:54 AM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Oh, and I would add: The argument Paul makes in Romans 5 is the best refutation to the non-historical Adam. Why would Jesus have to come and die for some abstraction of what we consider "fallen" humanity? If Jesus was an historical person as Paul argues, so too must Adam, who did something in real history.

8:56 AM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger DJP said...

So, do you first get promoted from "reverend" to "honorable reverend," and then "right honorable reverend"? Or is it first to "right reverend"? Or do you get both in one promotion? And what do you have to do to get that promotion? Can anyone start by being "right" or "honorable," and only later become "reverend"?

I wonder these things.

9:13 AM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger donsands said...

I truly do enjoy listening to him. I enjoy listening to Christopher Hitchens as well.

So, is NT saying we won't have harps, and our own cloud?

Thanks for posting NT Wright.

1:38 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"The denial of the historicity of Adam has little to no Gospel implications or impact."

Hi Fred,

What do you think Pastor John MacArthur would say to that statement?

2:21 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I would imagine John would disagree with it. Simply being is that the Christian faith is built upon the historical reality of what Adam did. He had to have been a real person or there just isn't a need for a real savior in Christ.

2:49 PM, February 04, 2010  
Blogger Lynda O said...

John MacArthur did a great Genesis series (Genesis 1-11), and actually that was my introduction to his teaching.
I too am amazed at how many church-going Christians compromise on the point of Genesis -- even if they believe the literal Genesis account, they dismiss it as though it isn't essential or important, and justify that they should still listen to a preacher that rejects literal Genesis 1-2.

11:15 AM, February 05, 2010  
Blogger Joshua Cookingham said...

Oh N.T. ....... *shakes head*

What is he even saying? He sounsd like one of those cultural professors that can't seem to get behind something unless it's romanticized....

6:37 AM, February 07, 2010  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home