N.T. Wright on “unfaithful”, “flat” readings of Genesis

Feel free to comment,

HT.

You might want to check out John Hobbins’ take on this.

You Might Also Like

6 Replies to “N.T. Wright on “unfaithful”, “flat” readings of Genesis”

  1. No problem with the idea that the text says more than is apparent when we spend all our time on polemics. Even an atheist can highlight something that is correct with implications for interpretation. At the same time, I don’t see this as a basis for honoring and reconciling with the ivory tower regarding origins.

  2. I agree with Mr. Wright that there is much more theologically in the Genesis story than merely a six-day chronicle. However, I found it strange that immediately after telling us to “lighten up,” he went on to denounce readings which believe in six literal days as “flat,” “almost perverse,” and “unfaithful,” as though any sort of literal reading of Genesis must therefore deny all the deeper things like God’s desire to redeem the world he created. From my rather limited perspective, my impression is that Wright’s video on Genesis created a false dichotomy between symbolic and factual/historical truth, which I cannot imagine persuading anyone other than someone who already tends toward a metaphorical reading of Genesis 1, 2, and 3. Didn’t do much for me. I’m still a young-earther after all that, I’m afraid.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.