Meaning and Myth

beaglelady - #2574

January 13^th 2010

This was an excellent talk. It’s enlightening (sometimes embarrassing) to sometimes look at ourselves as others see us. (Most but certainly not all of us here are Americans.)

N. T. Wright has always been a favorite of mine. He is a voice for orthodoxy in the challenging world-wide Anglican Communion. I also love his books, and we have studied some of them in our theology class at my church. I recommend them to one and all.
Jonathan Gauntlett - #2580

January 13^th 2010

This is an excellent post, as expected from someone of Wrights calibre. As Christianity is an historical religion, rooted ultimately in the historicity of Christ, it can be difficult for Christians to regard Genesis 1-3, or perhaps more correctly 1-11, as a mythic text. But we must remember that our modern tendency to find value in a text only in its literal of scientific accuracy should be placed aside when we consider that Gen 1-11 was given to an Ancient Near Eastern Culture that understood itself, its world, and its relationship to both God and other cultures in a mythological context. I think Wright is absolutely correct to say that we do gross injustice to Genesis and greatly undervalue the depth of meaning in the text if we read it at only a literal level. However, I think the conversation needs to be broadened to include a discussion regarding why NT authors such as Paul and Christ, for example Matt 19:4, also refer to Adam and Eve as literal historical characters. This is because regarding Gen 1-11 as non-literal and non-historical has implications for an evangelical understanding of the NT.
Mere_Christian - #2591

January 13^th 2010

Without a real Seth, there is little for real life to be represented in the rest of the Bible. Seth had a real mother and real father.
Brian - #2593

January 13^th 2010

Genesis, perhaps rightly, gets the lions’ share of the attention, but this is not the only relevant biblical text.

I’m wondering how the Biologos folks interpret Rom 1, for example, which reads in part, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. “

Seems pretty clear that Paul believes that a first century man with few tools at his disposal other than the naked eye is accountable to the god who made him. And on what basis? That the character of God—at least at a high level—can be “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.”

I’m particularly interested in the opinions of the Biologos folks: do the tools of modern science not add *any* value or insight whatsoever in terms of reasoning from creation back to creator?
Steve - #2594

January 13^th 2010

Quick! Is there any way to embed this video on Facebook?
Mike Gene - #2602

January 13^th 2010

There are three core truths that not only emerge clearly from Genesis 1-3, but also transcend literalism.

1. What is sin? Sin is rebellion against the will of God.

2. What is the consequence of sin? Evil, pain, suffering – existence outside the will of God.

3. What do humans do when confronted with their own sin? Deny it and direct the blame elsewhere. In essence, when confronted with their own sin, they sin again.

People sometime say to me, “Mike, but if there is no literal Adam and Eve, why did Jesus have to die?” To which I respond, “Are you saying you are without sin?”
Pete Enns - #2603

January 13^th 2010

Jonathan,

Just briefly, I think you are certainly correct. As I have said in other venues, the problem for a lot of Xians is not “science and faith” and not even “evolution and Genesis.” It is “Darwin and Paul” (referring to Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15; I also realize “Darwin” is just a convenient cipher—a lot has happened since Darwin). The issue for Xians is a dual hermeneutical issue: how do we understand Genesis in a way that is in honest conversation with what we know today scientifically and in terms of ancient Near Eastern religious texts that parallel Genesis AND how do we handle Paul’s understanding of Genesis when he was not aware of the very factors that force our own reconsideration of Genesis. In my opinion, American Evangelicalism is not well equipped to address this issue because of its polemical history, some of which NTW alludes to.
Stephen Barkley - #2620

January 14^th 2010

Thanks for the excellent video.

I wholeheartedly agree that we must allow the text to speak for itself rather than lay our 21st century North American framework on it—I just wonder whether that ideal’s possible. Could our very desire to challenge classic teaching be birthed out of the cultural shift out of modernism? Just a thought.

Thank you for this resource.

Steve.
Gregory Arago - #2622

January 14^th 2010

Great video! Thanks 4 posting this!

On ‘myth’ by McLuhan:

“Myth is the instant vision of a complex process that ordinarily extends over a long period. Myth is contraction or implosion of any process, & the instant speed of electricity confers the mythic dimension of ordinary industrial & social action today.” (1964: 38)

”[M]yth is the mode of simultaneous awareness of complex group causes & effects. In an age of fragmented, lineal awareness, such as produced & was in turn greatly exaggerated by Gutenberg technology, mythological vision remains quite opaque.” (1962: 266)

“Henceforth, literature will be at war with itself & with the social mechanics of conscious goals and motivations. For the matter of literary vision will be collective & mythic, while the forms of literary expression & communication will individualistic, segmental, & mechanical. The vision will be tribal & collective, the expression private & marketable. This dilemma continues to the present to rend the individual Western consciousness. Western man knows that his values & modalities are the product of literacy. Yet the means of extending those values, technologically, seem to deny & reverse them.” (1962: 269)

Fully agreed with Wright @ this. - Gr.
Charlie - #2626

January 14^th 2010

I think the main problem many Christians have with the Bible conflicting with science is that if they are to interpret parts of the Bible differently at the individual level, there is no way to determine if that interpretation is correct. It is difficult to have an organized religion with multiple, personal religions. Also, how does one exclude God as a symbol for something like the big bang instead of being a higher being, while still seeing other aspects of the Bible as symbolic? If the Bible is taken on personal interpretation, it is impossible for Christians to know or learn what aspects of the Bible are actually fact (I’m guessing all Christians agree that Jesus existed) from something the Biblical writers were uneducated about (raqia) from myth (Adam and Eve) from something divine (believing God is a higher being).
Jonathan Gauntlett - #2637

January 14^th 2010

Dr Enns,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I think that perhaps Genesis is the easy issue to tackle, but any alert evangelical will immediately notice the implications of a non-literal Genesis for a slew of other doctrines. As you point out, Darwin and Paul is perhaps one of the most significant. However, I think that the evolutionary creationist, or Biologos, position has the keys to constructively discuss these issues. From reading your excellent and provocative book it is clear that the historical situation of the author influences scripture. If we consider the following points made by yourself and Dr O. Lamoureux: 1. The historical/cultural setting to which revelation was given. 2. The ability of the Holy Spirit to accommodate His revelation to within the setting and 3. The message/incidence principle, that we can in many instances still clearly discern the theological message within the vehicle in which it was given, then can we not begin to understand something of what Paul was saying and why it was said given the background from which He was coming? It’s just that although discussion regarding Genesis is excellent and necessary, I would love to see here a scholarly post on evolution and the New Testament.
Russell Ash - #2646

January 14^th 2010

I believe Adam represents the first man and eve represents the first woman. I have a theistic evolutionary stance, but one opposition to this video if I may. It seems as if N.T. Wright near the end of this video was saying that Heaven will be on earth. Now there is where I differ. I do not believe that this world will be redeemed, but that there will be a new Heaven and new Earth completely separate from this universe. Theistic evolutionists believe in an afterlife right?
Pete Enns - #2648

January 14^th 2010

Jonathan,

I will consider a post like that. It is needed. Actually I am writing a book (don’t hold your breath) that is aimed at addressing the hermeneutical issues concerning evolution, with an entire section on Paul and the NT. If you “get” my book, you’ll see where I am going with that. Thanks for your comments.

Russell, yes we do believe in an afterlife. As for the New Heaven/Earth, I think NTW would say (and I would agree) that there is continuity and discontinuity with the old—much like the resurrection body. Final redemption concerns the entire cosmos. The old will be made new. NTW is trying to guard against a “heaven is sitting on clouds and playing harps” idea, which is grotesque from the point of view of biblical eschatology. Thanks too for your comments.
Matt - #2673

January 15^th 2010

Dr. Enns,

I was wondering if you could comment on NTW’s (almost passing) comment about a belief in an original pair, even if one accepts that Gen 2-3 describes this in mythical language. (i.e., not a literal “Adam” and “Eve”, but an a literal pair.)

Thanks,

Matt
Pete Enns - #2685

January 15^th 2010

I’m not sure, Matt. I think NTW may be thinking in terms of an original pair that was a result of evolution but then “created” in the image of God and so became a “first pair.” That is how I hear a lot of people coming to terms with evolution while also maintaining a first pair in some sense. I think that is an issue that could be explored in great depth, both for its strengths and weaknesses, and I can’t begin to do it justice here.
Matthew Walsh - #2692

January 15^th 2010

Thanks for the response, Dr. Enns. I lean (hope) toward that understanding, but I also recognize that it is not “air tight.” I do think that it is an issue to be explored. If evangelicals are comfortable with evolution, they gravitate toward that kind of understanding, as opposed to, for example, an interpretation like Denis Lemoureux’s. That being said, I think Lemoureux et al understandings have a lot to commend to them. An original pair takes some of the sting out of wrestling with Pauline interpretation (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15). Thanks for your work. As I mentioned previously (via fb), I&I has been helpful to me.

Living in the tension,

Matt
Gregory Arago - #2709

January 15^th 2010

“an original pair that was a result of evolution but then “created” in the image of God and so became a “first pair”.” - Dr. Enns

Yes, this sounds like a fair ‘accommodation.’ That’s meant in a supportive sense!

I also like M. Gene’s answer to the ‘reality of Adam and Eve.’ : )

One problem here is when geneticists claim that there was not a ‘first pair’ but rather a ‘first group.’

As an Adamic thinker/believer, along with all Jews, Christians and Muslims, I am offended by natural scientists who claim “there was no *real* Adam and/or Eve”.

How can this seeming contradiction of positions be remedied?

As a non-geneticist, I cannot tell a geneticist they are ‘wrong.’ But I can say that the names ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ have more than simply a ‘genetic’ meaning.

Is this a place where ‘scientism’ is exposed?
Knockgoats - #2710

January 15^th 2010

“As an Adamic thinker/believer, along with all Jews, Christians and Muslims, I am offended by natural scientists who claim “there was no *real* Adam and/or Eve”.” - Gregory Arago

Since there wasn’t - the genetic evidence is absolutely clear - you’re offended by people telling the truth. I guess telling the truth is what you mean by “scientism”.
Pete Enns - #2735

January 15^th 2010

Mere_Christian.

Xian is a common, accepted abbreviation. You may not know Greek, but “X” is not the English letter but the Greek letter chi, which is the first letter in the word Christ and Christian. In this context, it saves character space since we are limited.
Edward T. Babinski - #2819

January 17^th 2010

Why is the whole Bible framed by two myths? It stars with Genesis 1 and the ends with the descent of the “New Jerusalem” in Rev. What other myths not lie between those two?
Martin Rizley - #3012

January 19^th 2010

It seem to me that Dr. Wright wants to have his cake and eat it, too, in this sense: he admits that something like a “first human pair that got it wrong” took place in the historic past, yet he wants to categorize the first three chapters of Genesis as “myth.” My question to him is, if Genesis is truly a myth, why does there need to be a “first human pair” at all? It seems to me that he is wanting in some sense to affirm a historic “fall of man” into sin from an original state of sinless perfection, because he understands as a theologian, that without the doctrine of original sin and racial depravity, the whole system of Christian truth simply falls apart. Once you begin speaking of a “first human pair that got it wrong,” however, the question immediately arise—where did you get that idea from? Certainly not from books on evolutionary science. Clearly, he has gotten this idea from the Genesis narrative itself. So he is virutally admitting an underlying historical basis to the event recorded in Genesis 1-3— a view that is clearly at odds with the more radical views that are commonly expressed on this website, which deny any historical basis to Genesis at all.
Knockgoats - #3025

January 20^th 2010

I completely agree with Martin Rizley - let the record show!
Martin Rizley - #3028

January 20^th 2010

Knockgoats,
The record does in fact show that Dr. Wright got it right—despite his labelling of Genesis as “myth”— when he spoke of a “first human pair that got it wrong.” I am speaking, of course, of the testimonial record of the inspired Scriptures, which is the most reliable record of all.
Sabio Lantz - #3160

January 22^nd 2010

I get how one can look at the “thrust” of the Myth—as Wright says. In fact, I just posted about a Hindu myth in the Mahabharata.

Wright seems to want it both ways. He wants us not to judge his myth so that he can have it claiming “truths” that he wants it to say. He is willing to let the details go, just as long as he gets to decide what the “thrust” of the myth is.

He tells us that he believes that Genesis tells us the truth when it says that something like “a primal pair getting it wrong did happen.” And that Genesis makes a true claim when it says this world was made to be God’s dwelling and he shared it with humans.

Wright wants to say, “Well, not literally true” which I get, but he does want to decide exactly what part we should hang on to as true.

If we get a list of true claims that Wright wants the Bible to say, then we can discuss it. Unless one writes down the claims you think are made by the myths, conversations will slide all over the place as people keep moving the meaning to avoid detection. Instead they want to use it as a sacred tribal flag.
Martin Rizley - #3163

January 22^nd 2010

Sabio,
I couldn’t agree with you more! To speak of the Bible as “a divine revelation which errs much of what it affirms” is indeed a slippery-slide game by people who want to cling to certain select affirmations they find “comforting,” while rejecting those other affirmations that offend one’s autonomous reason, because I am unwilling to bring one’s reason in submission to the supreme, infallible authority of Scripture. If the Bible is only true in some of what it affirms, it is not the Word of God. It may “contain” God’s Word, as neorthodox theologians affirm, but it is not itself the Word of God—and it is intellectually dishonest and disingenuous for people to say that they believe the Bible is the Word of God, while picking and choosing which parts of it they believe to be true; for if the Bible is the Word of God, it cannot err, since God cannot err.
Martin Rizley - #3165

January 22^nd 2010

Sabio,
Please excuse the grammatical errors in the post above, I didn’t check it before sending it!
WoundedEgo - #3665

January 30^th 2010

I guess what he is saying is that Brits, for cultural reasons, take the story seriously, as a religious literature full of deep meaning, but that it is fiction, while Americans mistakenly take it as fact, and thus at odds with a scientific view of the universe. Fine, but he fails to show any reason for adopting a British viewpoint. Why take it as fiction?

Personally, I’ve come to regard the whole “Bible” as fiction, largely because the whole of the scriptures presume the Cosmogeny and Cosmology of Moses, which is patently false. For example, God is *always* presumed to be “up.” How can that be so on a spinning ball? And what of the sky ceiling, with its rain hatches?:

Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door [hatch] was opened in heaven [the sky ceiling]: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
Corby - #3699

January 31^st 2010

Ethnographers see myths as important in understanding the culture they are studying. The myths find their meaning and purpose and thus their validity in a certain culture’s context. If Genesis 1-3 is an ancient near eastern creation myth of a Semitic tribe of people, then there is ultimately no good reason to apply it to other cultural contexts. Divorced from its context it would have lose its power and relevance.

However, for the Christian it still has power and meaning and it cuts across contexts. Why? Because it is myth? The apostle Paul understood its power not because he was keen on myth, but because the word of God conveys a truth though time and culture that a myth could never do.

For example, is your life impacted as a Christian, by the creation myth of the Yanamamo or the Navajo? Can these myths be appreciated and shed light on the cultures from which they sprang? Yes. But they are not going to be used as examples, as Paul did with Adam, to argue the reason why Jesus Christ had to die on the cross.

I don’t think the word “myth” is the way to go. NTW is a smart man; perhaps he should use or even coin a new word or phrase.
Wayne MacKirdy - #3845

February 2^nd 2010

Question(s): If Genesis 1 and 2 are mythical, is Genesis 3 mythical also? How do we know one way or the other? If Genesis 3 is mythical, is Genesis 4? How about 5? How about 6-9? How about 10 and 11? How do we know when the mythical ceases and the historical begins? What criteria do we use to establish which is which? What hermeneutical principles are applied to the text to determine which is which?
Pete Enns - #3866

February 3^rd 2010

Wayne,

I understand the logic of your questions, but this is not a helpful way forward. The questions you ask about the various episodes in Genesis are not new, but have been scoured over countless times for generations, and various answers to these questions have been and continue to be discussed and debated. But, the fact that a “mythical” reading of Genesis 1-2 could lead to a mythical reading of Gen 3 does not mean that we are on the proverbial slippery slope. We are, rather, on a path to understanding what these stories in Genesis are saying and how they are to be understood today.
Jerry Wragg - #3906

February 3^rd 2010

I so wish I’d been born in the U.K., where they don’t have to be saddled with subjectivity and childish muddling of the religious with cultural and political ideals. I can’t imagine how briliant and free I’d be if America could only quit bothering with such trivialities as whether Genesis is actual truth, and get on with the objective kind of thinking inherent with being British.

You’ve got to be kidding me!
Philip Donald - #4079

February 8^th 2010

I agree that the word Myth is not always useful. I think ‘analogy’ may be more useful, but as someone mentioned before, coining a new phrase may be best. Myth, also as mentioned before, does not mean fantasy, in the way that NTW uses it. Something can be a myth and be true if we take the original meaning of the word myth. But nowadays, myth is too much saddled with the meaning ‘fantasy’ for it to be useful for this debate. There is something to be commended for living in the tension between myth and historical exactness. We’re often too caught up in reaching an ideal certitude which does not exist this side of the resurrection, if ever.
woodenheadedliteralist - #4603

February 16^th 2010

Oh, now I see, I am finally on the path to understanding. I don’t have to be saddled with this clunky historical account. I can be set free to embrace the major thematic thrusts of this ancient book. Before I thought the events presented in the books of the Bible actually happened in history and that major thematic themes were taking place congruently, what a fool I have been. Now I don’t have to marvel at how an all powerful all wise God could create the universe in six 24 hr days because the truth is that He didn’t do it and I refuse to accept that He could. Doing so might flatten out the real thrust.
Jerry Wragg - #4725

February 17^th 2010

Philip -

You said: “We’re too often caught up in reaching an ideal certitude which does not exist this side of the resurrection, if ever.”

So, let me get this straight: You say that being “caught up” in the search for certitude is, in fact, certainly futile because no such objective certainty is, in fact, certainly or definitively reachable in this life.

So much for your attempt at remaining uncertain!
Russ - #5294

February 25^th 2010

I think there is some historical significance to Adam and Eve. Not in the sense that Genesis 2 and 3 literally happened in that way, but that Adam and Eve are used in the story because of theological significance, in fact, an almost prophetic significance. Luke’s genealogy takes Jesus all the way back to Adam. The historical couple are thus used in the myth as examples of mankind’s relationship with God and what caused mankind to fall away from God. This particular couple is highlighted to show that Jesus is going to redeem their (mankind’s) mistake. My only reason for asserting that there probably was a couple who’s names were Adam and Eve is because of their historical appearance within the text (Adam is given an age and he and Eve beget children). As far as I am concerned, once chapter four starts, myth ends and history begins.
#John1453 - #5329

February 25^th 2010

woodenheadedliteralist is, though sarcastic, on the path to understanding. First, understand that myths can be historically true, or false. The legend of Troy was though to be fictional, but found to be true (though that legend is not a myth in the sense of a overacrhing story that has cultural significance and defines one’s understanding of oneself and the world).

Second, use your own 21st century culture and needs to make demands of the text that it has no interest in addressing. Being part of a culture that sees “history” as only being of one kind and that is still fighting a culture war narrows too much one’s reading of Genesis.

Third, God is sovereign and can have the Bible written anyway he wants to; he does not have to conform to any of our ideas about how the Bible must be written in order to be a valid revelation of himself and his relationship to humans. We need to investigate and understand how the Bible understands itself and defines itself and how God used people of a particular time, place and culture to communicate himself to both them and the wider world.

regards,
#John
William Smith - #5719

March 3^rd 2010

How does N. T. Wright get taken seriously. His lack of education is stunning. One glaring example: In his book SIMPLY CHRISTIAN (the worst non-fiction book I have ever finished) has compared Old Testament (i.e. Hebrew) history to a “Wagnerian leitmotif.” As any educated person knows, Wagner was a virulent anti-Semite who wrote a book about what he regarded as the malevolent Jewish influence in German culture. His views helped pave the way for Hitler.

More than this, in an age when a focus on social justice and communal worship (rather than on love for your individual neighbor and each individual’s loving obedience of God’s commandments) has just about destroyed the church, Wright entitles his first chapter “justice” and says (repeatedly and clumsily) that Jesus came to “put the world to rights.”

Forget N. T. Wright and go back (I guess) to reading a truly great mind from a greater era in the church: C. S. Lewis. His “Screwtape Proposes a Toast” is especially good medicine for the all-community, no-individual warping of the church.
Drane Reynolds - #6016

March 6^th 2010

I have no problem with the idea that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are essentially mythological, though with some vague historical connections. (Real history only begins with Abraham, though there are some mythological elements here and later in scripture as well) . For instance, there appears to be some evidence of a great flood in the Ancient Near East, though the story of Noah’s ark is unlikely at best. The meaning of those stories, however carry important theological and human truth. I think Wright, whom I greatly respect as a New Testament scholar, is too conservative here. Evolution has carried the day in science and Christians must be able to reconcile that view with their view of God as creator.
Brian - #8996

April 7^th 2010

I’m a little confused with N.T Wright and his stance on Adam and Eve as historical characters. He does say it is important that “Something like” 2 humans got it wrong happened. But that “Something Like” is very vague. it could refer to a rebellion of two humans in a garden but it could also refer to the rebellion of humans generally
Dr. James Willingham - #9569

April 12^th 2010

Once an atheist, willing to exterminate religion prior to conversion, I remember my pychology professor introducing the pabulum of mythology and evolution in Genesis 1-11. It implied that the atheistic, approach was right. After that, I studied the issue. I discovered modern science is flawed, hung up in analysis. The difficulty is synthesis, when the null hypothesis is true. There is the problem of Social Darwinism and Eugenics adopted by the Nazis.. I look at the Bible in light of intellect, inspired by Omniscience. It reflects wisdom commensurate with the fact. Intellectualism is my interest. I am impressed by biblical simplicity,depth,clarity and profoundity. N.T. Wright is a NT Scholar. I read his writings with profit, but he is over his head in Genesis. Strange mythology in a literature concerned with truth. Peter said, “We have not followed cunningly devised myths.” He spoke of the Mount of Transfiguration; he preferred the Book to experience. Seeing the book conquer vicious desires, I give it the benefit of doubt. Since people lie for a cause and scientists pull stunts, too, I am not impressed with evolution as in my atheistic days..
John Warren - #19223

June 27^th 2010

What do politics or the Atlantic Ocean have to do with the way one views Genesis 1-3? Either it’s true or it’s not, in the USA, England, Cameroon, or Tibet. Once you decide that God is not a liar at a basic level (i.e., words) you can then move onto the overtones, or the way the Creation Story resembles the Tabernacle/Temple cult, and be highly blessed by it. I am amazed at how, at the end, he can turn it around on those who take Scripture at face value and say that they do disservice to the text by not understanding it correctly. But NT Wright is actually serving (wittingly or unwittingly) to undermine it’s credibility (if that were possible), by sophisticatedly calling into question the straightforward meaning of the words. I’m also amazed at how facilely he lumps those who try to take God at face value with one-dimensional dualists. Pretty insulting. There was a lot of strawmanism going on in this man who’s so respected by millions.

I have no problem with the Power of Myth, and I do not see Myth as necessarily contrary to Fact. I just believe in God’s power more than NT Wright does, because I believe He can write His Great Story, in the amazing way only He can, with actual facts. That’s much more powerful.
Jon Garvey - #22316

July 18^th 2010

“What do politics or the Atlantic Ocean have to do with the way one views Genesis 1-3? Either it’s true or it’s not, in the USA, England, Cameroon, or Tibet. Once you decide that God is not a liar at a basic level (i.e., words) you can then move onto the overtones,”

Just looked the editorial in today’s “New York Times”. I gather it’s considered quite a reliable purveyor of truth that side of the Atlantic. The heading is “How can Obama rebound?”

Now, I guess it either represents truth or not, but I’d have to say that over here we’re not overly concerned with whether our politicians bounce, but about their policies.

Which is to say that words are never “just” words, even in straight journalism, but always carry a cultural weighting. In the case of the NYT headline, unless a foreigner looks at the cultural overtones first, he’ll never have a clear idea of what the words actually mean. In the Bible God does indeed write his great story with actual facts, but also uses a lot of metaphor, poetic description (sometimes in parallel with facts, as in the Song of Deborah), parable and even peculiarly Jewish genres like apocalyptic. They’re not the overtones, but the message itself.
Jon Garvey - #22317

July 18^th 2010

Incidentally, there is an amusing illustration of a modern mythical cosmogeny (in graphic form) on this very site: see the illustration here: http://biologos.org/questions/ages-of-the-earth-and-universe/

The picture is fairly typical of what you see in textbooks on prehistory, and would appear to suggest that evolutionists believe the world to be a spiral with a river or ocean running down the middle. Is this picture a true representation of scientific opinion (whether or not you subscribe to their views)? Is it supposed to be literally true? Well, yes, but only if you have the cultural keys in your mind to translate the picture into the right ideas. I dare say if you showed it to an ancient Hebrew or Babylonian he would wonder what on earth led us to such a grotesquely distorted view of the world.
Trent - #25060

August 7^th 2010

Dr. James Willingham

Bless you for your conversion!
I am praying that this happens to more atheists that they may recieve christ!
- Add Your Comment
- Science & the Sacred welcomes both critical and supportive voices in our comments section. However, please be sure to read our Ground Rules for Commenting before posting. We reserve the right to remove any comments we deem inappropriate.
- Comment:
  You have 1250 characters remaining.
- Name:
- Email (will not be published):
- URL:
- Remember me

Filed Under:

Add Your Comment