Like Christians of all ages, Origen carefully engaged the biblical text according to the worldview of his community at the time.

In this video Conversation, Rev. N.T. Wright speaks about some of the concepts explored in his latest book After You Believe.

By watching ancient interpreters at work, we will see that evangelicals today may have something to learn from them.

There is a strange, hyperbolic expression favored by the New Atheists: "cramming religion down the throats of children." This language evokes the harshest of images.

The seas teem with countless beautiful and wonderful creatures, from the silvery schools of fish that dart through the waters and the mysterious jellyfish who float silently through the deep. To what can we attribute such beauty?

There is always a little venom to spare for the so-called "accommodationists," these being folk who think that one might possibly be onside with science and yet be religious.

Infants learn to crawl before they learn to walk, or so they say. Ancient Christian theologians had a similar theory about the sacred text.

Can science provide substantive insight into the question of God’s existence? This series of blogs will examine three schools of thought regarding the possibility of detecting God’s existence through science: Evolutionism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design.

But what of those who say such a reading is a “low view of Scripture” that ignores the text’s role as God’s word to the church?

In this video Conversation, Rev. N.T. Wright responds to the controversy in evangelicalism about evolution. Is this a “culture war” issue?

These examples show that these two historians have very different reasons for writing their histories.

We frequently are asked why BioLogos doesn’t post a faith statement. People want to know: “Just what do you believe, anyway?” This is not an easy thing to do given that BioLogos is a place for conversation among people of diverse viewpoints and traditions. The BioLogos staff members represent assorted backgrounds in the protestant evangelical tradition.

When reading Psalm 8 it is easy to make the mistake of thinking that the message at its center—concerning mankind’s “being made a little lower than the heavenly beings” and our dominion over creation—is actually at its heart.

So what is the real relationship between science and religion? Bitter rivals or teammates? Adversaries or advocates? The truth and the lie?

It is understandable why most Christians believe that Adam was a real historical person. This is exactly what Scripture states in both the Old and New Testaments. To defend their position, these believers often offer three arguments by appealing to the apostle Paul.

In addressing these ideas, my goal is not to “win” the argument about whether God exists. I think belief in God is incredibly complicated and that there are solid and defensible reasons to reject belief in God.

In this video Conversation, Rev. N.T. Wright responds to the question of how Adam functions theologically in the Old Testament and whether a historical Adam is central or important for the “Adam theology” in Paul’s letter to the Romans.

The discussion surrounding Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlondinow’s latest book The Grand Design continues to swirl across the internet. Today we’d like to point readers to two more responses by theologians Philip Clayton and Alister McGrath.

These two different accounts were not given to us by the Spirit of God in order for us to blur the distinctions and make the two into one. The distinct message of 1 and 2 Chronicles is God’s word to the postexilic Israelites. It is worthy of our full respect and attention.

Stephen Hawking is talking about God again. His new book, due in America in September 7, has the champions of atheism all excited.

We often talk about what’s holding her back from giving the control of her life over to Christ. One of the biggest barriers is the blatant sinfulness of self-professing Christians, which can be alarming and hard to understand for unbelievers.

Typical of ancient accounts of origins, the Lord God created these de novo; that is, they were made quickly and completely formed. But Genesis 2 focuses mainly on the origin of humanity. Adam is made “from the dust of the ground” (v. 7). Notably, the use of earth to rapidly form mature human beings appears in other ancient Near Eastern creation stories.

The working of the Spirit in an immanent reality means that I may find new ways of understanding a scripture message, but these are not steps along the perilous slope but in fact a new solid place to stand.

While scientists frequently liken the cell to a factory that produces complicated machines, they rightly recognize the limits of the comparison: the cell is decidedly unlike a factory when it comes to how assembly actually happens.

In this video Conversation, Rev. N.T. Wright responds to the question, “If you take Genesis in a non-literal fashion, especially the creation stories, why take anything in the Bible literally—such as the Gospels? Do you take the Gospels literally?”

The problem, though, is that Chronicles and Samuel/Kings both claim to report history, yet they report that history differently—and significantly so.

BioLogos, unless we are careful, could evolve into a place for armchair philosophy.

The creation accounts of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 seem to tell different stories.

We ask philosopher Francis Beckwith, "What are you three favorite quotes on science and faith?"

Ever since modern science emerged in the 16th and 17th centuries, it has been used and abused for purposes that lie well beyond science. Biology has been particularly susceptible to ideological manipulation and application, a trend that shows no sign of abating.

De novo creation is the ancient conceptualization of origins found in the Bible. This term is made up of the Latin words de meaning “from” and novus “new.” Stated more precisely, it is a view of origins that results in things and beings that are brand new.

In this video Conversation, N.T. Wright responds to a question from a BioLogos Forum reader who notes that in the world of evangelical Christianity there seems to be a great suspicion about becoming too politically liberal, but few worries about becoming too conservative.