# Longman's new commentary



## arapahoepark (Feb 15, 2016)

Longman wrote a new commentary on Genesis and the first review I found is rather unfortunate.
https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/longmans-new-genesis-commentary-a-critical-review/
Sort of ties together why he attacks a confessional seminary.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 15, 2016)

I posted the aquila report article on it: http://theaquilareport.com/longmans-new-genesis-commentary-a-critical-review/

Which is the same article.

And I posted on facebook "Really he just makes a 'new' genesis..."

But really I found out he is a biologos guy and a ANE guy and so basically I conclude that he is a hack of a theologian.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 15, 2016)

This is not surprising considering his much shorter book on Genesis ,"How to Read Genesis", in which he rather tepidly defends it against the liberal attacks on the Pentateuch.


----------



## ZackF (Feb 15, 2016)

In short, is Longman Enns-lite?


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 15, 2016)

He's just Enns, Zach. :\


----------



## MW (Feb 15, 2016)

The series title, "Story of God," is used in modern "evangelical" scholarship as a code word for deconstructive approaches to interpretation.


----------



## Gforce9 (Feb 15, 2016)

Romans922 said:


> He's just Enns, Zach. :\





MW said:


> The series title, "Story of God," is used in modern "evangelical" scholarship as a code word for deconstructive approaches to interpretation.



This is all very disturbing......


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 15, 2016)

MW said:


> The series title, "Story of God," is used in modern "evangelical" scholarship as a code word for deconstructive approaches to interpretation.



Is there any link to this and the Klinean Republicationists? They (some only to be clear not all) also employ use of 'story' often in preaching.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 15, 2016)

Wow! Makes me want to throw up in my mouth for my alma mater Westmont. Longman is the "Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies at Westmont." I took 32 semester units from Bob Gundry at Westmont before HE went off the rails theologically. So sad.


----------



## MW (Feb 15, 2016)

Romans922 said:


> Is there any link to this and the Klinean Republicationists? They (some only to be clear not all) also employ use of 'story' often in preaching.



Only insofar as biblical theology has been hijacked to blow up traditional historically-grounded Christianity in the cause of narrative ideology.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Feb 15, 2016)

I'm working my way through Jonathan Sarfati's new commentary on Genesis 1-11. So far this is much better than what I'm hearing about Longman.


----------



## RAR (Feb 15, 2016)

We shouldn't be too surprised, after all, hasn't he adopted liberal views on the historicity of Adam?


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 15, 2016)

RAR said:


> We shouldn't be too surprised, after all, hasn't he adopted liberal views on the historicity of Adam?



I am not sure if you read it completely or not but that's the least of it. Now he says they were showing every man and man would do in the situation and he now denies original sin.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 16, 2016)

RAR said:


> We shouldn't be too surprised, after all, hasn't he adopted liberal views on the historicity of Adam?



[video=youtube;I8Pk1vXL1WE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8Pk1vXL1WE[/video]

If what Trent has said is correct, he seems to have gone even further since this video was made.


----------



## ZackF (Feb 16, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> RAR said:
> 
> 
> > We shouldn't be too surprised, after all, hasn't he adopted liberal views on the historicity of Adam?
> ...



It takes 12 parts to say whether or not there is a historical Adam.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 16, 2016)

Once one begins to deny the historicity of Adam, it is not long before they begin to question the historicity of everyone in Scripture. http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/the-abraham-myth


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 16, 2016)

What should we expect if we are merely “animals that have a special relationship with God” (p. 52)?

The antidote to getting off the rails, the controlling function of creeds and confessions, only works when one submits his fallen intellect and tendentious rationalizing to the collective wisdom of those who have hammered out the truth and conserved it over the millennia. Unfortunately, the human reason knows no limits or controls when allowed to function autonomously.


----------



## MW (Feb 16, 2016)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Once one begins to deny the historicity of Adam, it is not long before they begin to question the historicity of everyone in Scripture. http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/the-abraham-myth



An example of human genius:



Leithart said:


> We must die to our modern demand to know “what happened” and recognize that Scripture is infallible only when it is thoroughly de-historicized.



An example of divine inspiration:



1 Corinthians 10:11 said:


> Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.



Human genius says that the individual must existentially leap over the historical uncertainty of the account to come to faith. Divine inspiration says that faith must stand on the historicity of the account in order to obtain the certainty of existence.


----------



## rickclayfan (Feb 16, 2016)

I'm confused, is Leithart being sarcastic? Either he is insanely absurd or simply sarcastic. "Then we will arrive finally at the fullness of Christian faith, the Church of Christ Without Jesus" (Leithart).

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk


----------



## MW (Feb 16, 2016)

rickclayfan said:


> I'm confused, is Leithart being sarcastic? Either he is insanely absurd or simply sarcastic.



I think it's called satire.


----------



## Justified (Feb 16, 2016)

MW said:


> rickclayfan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm confused, is Leithart being sarcastic? Either he is insanely absurd or simply sarcastic.
> ...



The whole piece was satire, correct?


----------



## MW (Feb 16, 2016)

Justified said:


> The whole piece was satire, correct?



It seems to be intended that way. Leithart has written positively for the historicity of Genesis against Enns' views.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 16, 2016)

MW said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> > The whole piece was satire, correct?
> ...



Yes apparently it was intended as satire. https://theopolisinstitute.com/abraham-myth-a-response-to-Peter-enns/


----------



## Justified (Feb 16, 2016)

MW said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> > The whole piece was satire, correct?
> ...



That's what I thought. I find Enn's views very troubling and gnostic like.


----------



## Alex the Less (Feb 16, 2016)

*sprechen sie Deutsch?*



Justified said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > rickclayfan said:
> ...



If you knew German it is much easier to catch P.L.s' drift. Unglauber=unbeliever. Pferd-Geschichte=horse history.

You are welcome. 

Now someone tell me who those presidents are in the Presidential Poll thread.


----------



## MW (Feb 16, 2016)

My mistake; it was a parody. I had better brush up on my literary terms. 

Yes, finding ourselves in the "story" is basically an exercise in self-conscious realisation, which is a type of gnosticism. It chooses insight over truth and narrative over history. One must be "initiated" in order to be received into this higher-consciousness Christianity.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 16, 2016)

MW said:


> My mistake; it was a parody. I had better brush up on my literary terms.
> 
> Yes, finding ourselves in the "story" is basically an exercise in self-conscious realisation, which is a type of gnosticism. It chooses insight over truth and narrative over history. One must be "initiated" in order to be received into this higher-consciousness Christianity.



Now that I read it again, it seems pretty obvious that it is satire. However at first glance I did not pick up on this, likely because I have become so accustomed to liberal absurdity that nothing surprises may anymore. I suppose the fact that this article could easily pass for a genuine example of liberal scholarship was the whole point.


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 17, 2016)

ZackF said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > RAR said:
> ...



7-8 years ago I read The Language of God by Francis Collins. He argued for evolution in an almost pastoral way. It came across as 'hey I am on your side!' So I started following his Biologos site. There were numerous blog posts they all had a dozen or so parts, each pretty small, typically outlining problem after problem with what they saw as a literal interpretation or something. The final post was lack luster in its solutions. They would say 'The Bible says this....' with no quotations or anything. After awhile you started seeing things (well for me a took awhile I was less intelligent and less discerning then) like poking holes in the Bible, inerrancy, etc. One would have thought the gospel was to 'merge evolution and the Bible.'


----------

