That I like. In other words, we can’t help ourselves, Somebody help us!
The bottom line looks like you are saying that Jesus was Plan B because people failed. The first creation was subjected to death and futility from its very beginning, not just from the fall, because God had a two-creation plan to start with:
Wright explains that when he “reads things literally,” he literally means “according to the literal intent of the author”—specifically, the intent of the literature: how was the text supposed to be understood?
Not…how does a “literal reading of the text answers my scientifically oriented questions”?
I hope I’m representing Dr. Wright faithfully. He’s welcome to come to this forum and correct my synopsis.
1 Like
No. God created to increase his (Jesus’) joy:
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Hebrews 12:2
That joy is us, if we belong to him.
1 Like
Along these lines, a “plain reading” of the text also seems to me to say that the garden of Eden was a special place set aside by God separated from the rest of creation. If you take it literally, death, destruction, thorns and mosquitos still was the norm outside of Eden, and exile from the garden just put Adam and Eve into the reality that was already there, rather than proposing that immortal lions were chowing down on thornless roses. From my standpoint, Eden seems not to be literal however, as it is made a magically place with talking animals and magic trees, in a mythical place “to the East” where the rivers of the known world began, but whether literal or not, there is no need to make up stuff.
4 Likes
It is worth mentioning that Jesus often used fables when teaching.
3 Likes
Now that “literally” is considered a synonym for “figuratively” in English dictionaries, it isn’t too surprising to find statements that would have been oxymorons just a decade ago.
1 Like
Makes sense to me and that sounds like something he would say. Literarily fits pretty well too.
2 Likes
It seems clear to me. If the Bible is the Word of God, as the Fundamentalists claimed, then Bible is God and absolutely true. If Jesus is the Word of God as John 1 says, then Jesus is God, and the Bible is not absolutely true.
True, it just bothers me when some say the entire Bible is a fairytale or a collection of such, not sure why it bugs me though my guess is I feel some sort of attachment to the text do to loved ones (mainly my mother) having had hung onto it with such assurance that it was true all the way through up to her death. I just don’t get how someone could be ao sure of themselves and of what they are taught to a point that they claim such as fact till death. I will say I admired her for her admiration of the subject.
2 Likes
Excellent point. If one views the events leading to the “failure accounts” as attempted saving acts by God, then, these events might be understand as the failure of plan A. On the other hand, if one sees the events leading to the “failure accounts” as revealing to people what will not save them, there is no reasons to suppose these events as a plan A for salvation. For the record, the idea of two plans of salvation is blasphemy in that rejects the necessity of Christ’s death. Thank you for pointing out the issue.
1 Like
I agree. Forgive my poor language. The sentence following “Why did god create?” was not intended to answer the question, but explain what the narratives were revealing. You provided the answer for what should be known to all believers but is so often ignored when understanding scripture.
1 Like
A real catalyst.
3 Likes
Are you trying to sneak some real biochem in by the side door? But that would be secular science. 
1 Like
He’s got a great teaching style that, Dr. Enzyme… he’s always breaking things down. 
6 Likes
I completely agree. At a level of basic human respect, one shouldn’t disparage scriptures that other people hold dear. Additionally, describing the Bible as fairytales also misses the mark at the level of history and literature.
2 Likes
In spite of my own initial, knee-jerk response, I figured he used “fairytales” in lieu of the more common word “parables” simply because he’s never heard it before, or because he forgot that the latter is the more common way of referring to the stories, or perhaps it was a “metaphorical” description, and not a “literal” description, although he could have just been “ignernt” and biased.
1 Like
It seems to me that the crux of this argument boils down to “all or nothing”. The bible is not one book so why should all elements be treated the same? You would not read the psalms in the same manner as a Gospel, so why should the method of interpretation / understanding have to be so narrow? As the understanding and knowledge of humanity has progressed and changed, so would the understanding and knowledge if those inspired by God. If the knowledge of the cosmos does not yet exist, how can someone write about it? And even if they did, who else would understand, let alone believe it?
Richard
2 Likes
I am sure this has been said many times before by many others - but the whole redemption story hangs on an original fall from grace by an original human couple, newly created by God in a state of innocence. If human beings are primates, then it is hardly surprising that we are essentially selfish and self-centred - that’s how species survive in this world of limited resources. If Adam and Eve are not responsible for the state of the world - full of suffering and pain as it is - then why does God hold us responsible? Why not call us to rise above our animal origins rather than the fiction (if such it is) that we need to be redeemed from a sin condition inherited from our distant ancestors who could have chosen differently?
There is no such thing as Original Sin. Sin is neither contagious nor inherent. This is not just me it is a biblical Fact. (Jer 31 & Ezek 18). So there must be another reason, both for the human predilection for sin (selfishness?) and the need for redemption.
However, as a theological teaching Genesis has a place. Just as a parable does not need to be physically true, neither does Genesis 3-4.
The problem with having a free will is the “temptation” to choose for self, or the easy way out. The fact that we do sin is enough for Christ’s redemption. There is no need to make it reliant on an ancient figure.
Richard
3 Likes