Quite enlightening.  Was fair to both sides of the issues. 

First...taking the Bible literally?  Do you take the sports page literally?  Did the Eagles eat up the Bengals?  A really bloody mess?   
I think you should take the Bible as it is intended to be taken.  When it says the sun set, it's from the perspective of the person writing not stating scientific knowledge.  However, I found his take on this interesting.

red letter christians?  This was a new one for me...kinda whacky in my opinion, but everyone has their take on things.

scientific worldview?  I wonder if he is talking about Philosophical Naturalism?  Science is a tool not a worldview.  This is quite a common misconception though.  I'm a scientist but I have a Christian worldview. 

I definitely agree with engaging and wrestling with the Bible.

Overall I appreciate his experience and comments.  It's an interesting undertaking.  However, I think he misunderstands the Bible. 

In summary, we can be thankful to Jesus that we don't have to follow all the rules to please God. 

Good post Anxiety!

Does anyone really apply sicence and empiricism universally throughout life?  I really doubt that.  It's pretty much impossible in my opinion.  It would probably make you insane to try to do that.  I believe that he probably meant that he sees life through the worldview of a naturalist meaning there is nothing that happens supernaturally.  The only things that are real in life can be explained by scientific study - the philosophy of naturalism. 

Anxiety, I believe that I meant that a correct understanding would be taking the bible in its ordinary sense.  Seeing metaphors as metaphors, laws for Jewish society as a theocracy as just that.  The man in the video, as sincere as he was, mixed the two faiths (Judaism and Christianity) together from what I could tell.  I don't know many mainstream Christians that believe you have to follow all of the rules of the Bible (specifically regarding the laws under the covenant that God had with the nation of Israel).

I believe that studying the books and also learning from people who have studied the writing styles and traditions of the age when they were written helps.  However, I believe that the bible is pretty accessible to the average reader. 

I wouldn't rely on a few splinter groups or cults of christianity to correctly view how to apply the scriptures.  I wrote what I did because it's not realistic to try to "obey all the rules in the bible".  He seemed to be dismissing Christianity because he has lumped it all together with Judaism (out of tradition, rabbincal binding and loosing, etc.) and try them both at the same time.

because the majority of "mainstream" christians adhere to "orthodox" Christianity as it has been passed down all the way back to the very first disciples of Jesus, well...at least they claim it all as true, but whether or not they follow all of the ideas and live the life are another story.   The smaller groups have much less accountability and are usually directed by the teachings of one person who greatly diverged from the original teachings of Jesus and the beliefs and teachings of his disciples. 

I don't know about that, but I would say that they probably didn't believe they evolved from a sort of grand cosmic accident.  There are actually a few different ways to read the creation story I believe.  Here is a link to 3 that I am aware:
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/review_genesis_debate.html 
I tend to like the Framework view.  Here is a link to something written about it if you want:
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/framework_interpretation.html

I'm no expert, but I believe that Irons, who wrote the above links, does a pretty good job at describing these things.

I think it would be interesting to research and find out what the Jews of Jesus' day believed about the origin and purpose of life.  I'll have to add it to my list of things to do...

...good questions!

I don't think that I have a clear grasp of what your question is, but I'll try to answer anyway.  Please rephrase it if you feel I'm way off. 

I think that man's observation of how the world works hasn't changed much.  We see and know that things have the ability to adapt and change (microevolution), but I would say no, they didn't have a concept for macroevolution as it is believed today - the leap from species to species from a pool of amino acids or whatnot.  I haven't studied ancient history enough let alone what they believed about the origin of man and woman.  People's take on the world, no matter when, is usually from passed down traditions and observations of the past and present. 

What do you think?