Wesley Huff

is trying to explain how people came into existence in the same way that maybe we want it to. And a lot of people read the origin stories in Genesis as a scientific textbook. And I think ultimately that misses the point of what Genesis is trying to say. This goes back to what we were talking about with like, how would have the original audience understood this? When they read Genesis chapter one,

Are they looking at that as an exact prescription of what God did? I mean, in some ways, maybe, but in other ways, they could see that as this like counter-apologetic to the other ancient Near Eastern stories, like I explained. So I just think we need to be careful when we're looking at, or even like counting up the genealogies and coming up with how old the earth is.

Are they looking at that as an exact prescription of what God did? I mean, in some ways, maybe, but in other ways, they could see that as this like counter-apologetic to the other ancient Near Eastern stories, like I explained. So I just think we need to be careful when we're looking at, or even like counting up the genealogies and coming up with how old the earth is.

Are they looking at that as an exact prescription of what God did? I mean, in some ways, maybe, but in other ways, they could see that as this like counter-apologetic to the other ancient Near Eastern stories, like I explained. So I just think we need to be careful when we're looking at, or even like counting up the genealogies and coming up with how old the earth is.

I think that might be missing the forest for the trees. in what we're actually looking at when we look at ancient documents and how we're trying to interpret them. But it is a big question, right?

I think that might be missing the forest for the trees. in what we're actually looking at when we look at ancient documents and how we're trying to interpret them. But it is a big question, right?

I think that might be missing the forest for the trees. in what we're actually looking at when we look at ancient documents and how we're trying to interpret them. But it is a big question, right?

I mean, that area of science is crazy.

I mean, that area of science is crazy.

I mean, that area of science is crazy.

The universe is bonkers.

The universe is bonkers.

The universe is bonkers.

Yeah. And I mean, I think we get that in history, too, whereas we have these kind of what we think are established conventions. And all of a sudden we discover something and it like completely overthrows the ideas that we have. Like Clovis first. Yeah. Or go back. Yeah. Or actually good. Good segue.

Yeah. And I mean, I think we get that in history, too, whereas we have these kind of what we think are established conventions. And all of a sudden we discover something and it like completely overthrows the ideas that we have. Like Clovis first. Yeah. Or go back. Yeah. Or actually good. Good segue.

Yeah. And I mean, I think we get that in history, too, whereas we have these kind of what we think are established conventions. And all of a sudden we discover something and it like completely overthrows the ideas that we have. Like Clovis first. Yeah. Or go back. Yeah. Or actually good. Good segue.

Yeah. I made one. I made something for you. Oh.

Yeah. I made one. I made something for you. Oh.

Yeah. I made one. I made something for you. Oh.

I make papyri facsimiles. Oh, my description is a little bit wonky here. I'm going to fix that. So you were talking about like what is our oldest manuscript evidence. So this guy is P52, John Ryland's 457. So that's a genuine Egyptian papyri that I made. I cut it out for you. And then I transcribed the text on – That manuscript.