← Ask NT Wright Anything
Loading summary
Transcript43 lines
- [00:03]
A
Before we jump into today's episode, we've got a free resource you won't want to miss. It's called the Robot Could AI Ever Replace Humanity? A thought provoking ebook exploring the rise of artificial intelligence, what it means to be human, and how Christians can think biblically in this new tech age. If you've ever asked can machines become conscious or does AI challenge our faith? This is for you. Download your free copy now@premierinsight.org resources. Again, that's premierinsight.org resources. And now it's time for today's podcast.
- [00:41]
B
You say you'll never join the Navy, never climb Mount Fuji on a port visit, or break the sound barrier. Joining the Navy sounds crazy. Saying never actually is. Learn why@navy.com America's Navy forged by the.
- [00:56]
A
Sea Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing, to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into Sign up for your $1 per month trial at shopify.com specialoffer hello and welcome to the Ask nt Write Anything podcast, the program where we look at Jesus, the Bible, and the life of faith. I'm Mike Bird from Ridley College and I am joined once again as always.
- [01:44]
B
With Tom Wright from Oxford in England.
- [01:48]
A
Tom, I'm always excited to see you. I'm always excited to see your answers to these questions. Now, sometimes you get to have a bit of a sneak peek at these questions, but sometimes I just throw them at you randomly and see if you can do it. Like a great improvisation actor, you always come to the table with the goods. And we've got some good questions. We've got questions about whether the canon is closed and what to do with alleged contradictions in the Gospels and the whole debate over Scripture versus Tradition. And first up, that we've got a question about whether the canon is really closed. One listener to the show says this Dear Tom, thank you for sharing insights from a lifetime of study. I have listened with interest to past episodes and my question starts where your responses often come to rest on matters of inspiration, canon, and inerrancy. When you say that we have the Bible that God intended us to have, what exactly do you mean? Do you have the original manuscripts in mind? Can a gloss be inspired? And what should we make of New Testament quotations from the Septuagint. That's the great Greek translation of the Old Testament that seem to differ from the Hebrew Masoretic text. Would you consider our evolving tapestry of biblical translations as the Bible God intended us to have? Clearly the Bible did not pop into existence as a completed unity. But I struggle a little squaring the idea that his message can deepen over time and the other idea that goes with it, that the canon might be closed. Thank you so much for your consideration. God bless. Well, from that questioner who's got something for us. What do you have to say, Tom?
- [03:49]
B
Well, yes, I was reminded when you were saying that about having the Bible this way. I was privileged a long time ago in the 1970s to witness in Cambridge a public discussion between Archbishop Michael Ramsey and Billy Graham. Billy Graham had been preaching university mission and the church where they'd held that had made it a condition of letting Billy Graham preach, that he would come back and do a public discussion with Michael Ramsey. And Ramsey was caricaturing in a friendly sort of way, an over evangelicalized view of Scripture. And he said in his inimitable fashion, there's some people who believe that the Bible came down from heaven in black leather covers complete with maps. At which point, of course, a round of applause complete with maps. Give me a break. Of course we have modern editions of the Bible and the maps I don't think anyone claims are inspired. But equally, of course, there are some who have been told from an early age, the Bible is the word of God. You pick it up and you're holding God's word in your hand. Every syllable matters, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And so there are some for whom, and I've known several in the days of my youth, for whom the King James Version was the inspired version. That's the one God gave his. Now, if I was William Tyndale, I would say, well, hang on, they used two thirds of my work and where they changed it, they made it a lot more formal than La Dida because I wanted it to be boots on the ground stuff for the ploughboy to be able to sing it as he was working. And King James turned it into something a bit more for his courtiers to feel was a more elegant thing. So right away, in that English tradition of venerating the Scriptures, we've got some tricky things going on. And then of course, through the generations, we've suddenly had this explosion of new translations, including, dare I say, my own. And I want to Say as a Bible translator, no translation is perfect because there's no way that you can make Greek words, let alone Hebrew words, fit exactly into English ones. Even translating from modern German to modern English, or modern French to modern English, those being the two foreign languages I know best, you can't always hit it right. And a good translation will often have to paraphrase in order to bring out the flavor or feel of what's going on. And I've often said when I was translating the Gospels, it dawned on me these are hugely exciting documents. Mark's Gospel is a very dramatic, exciting piece of writing. If you translate it woodenly so that every word is according to the dictionary exactly right, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good translation because if when you read it in English, if it doesn't make you excited, then it's not Mark you're reading, it's somebody's wooden pseudo representation of Mark. So there are many issues down that line. But back from that is this question of the canon and why we've got those books and all the rest of it and how did they get transmitted? I think there's a problem here, and I think it goes back to the 18th century, particularly in Protestantism in Western Europe and then North America. There was this sense that over against the heavy handed medieval regime of the Pope and the cardinals and the curia in Rome telling you exactly what to believe. People then said, and still have been saying until fairly recently in the Roman Catholic Church that the laity ought not to read the Bible because the clergy will tell them what it says, so they should keep their hands off it because they might get things messed up. That's traditional Catholics being frightened of a kind of bit of Protestant anarchy breaking out. But over against that, thank the Lord. Now more and more Roman Catholics around the world are being encouraged to read the Bible, which raises all sorts of other questions. But what then happened was that the Protestantism of the 16th and 17th century was so concerned that we had the Bible, not the Pope. So that then when the 18th century rationalists got hold of that idea, they will say, how is the Bible true? And if the Pope is claiming he's gonna be infallible, which wasn't made official dogma until later, but it was already in the air then maybe the Scripture has to be infallible as well. Now of course we have verses like in 2 Timothy, all scripture inspired by God, profitable, et cetera, et cetera. But that's a fairly slim basis for saying, okay, infallible Bible, that Means every last syllable must be quote true, unquote. Though how you can say that when most is poetry. Poetry doesn't submit easily to the rationalist analysis of truth or falsity. You know, God has smoke coming out of his nostrils. True or false? It must be true. It says so in the Bible. Does that mean God has nostrils? Well, wait a minute, we hadn't thought about that. And so on. And I think I want to throw into this mix as well what Jesus himself says according to Matthew in chapter 28, where the risen Jesus says, all authority is given not to the books you chaps are gonna go and write, but to me. And I wrote a whole book about the Scripture and the authority of God in which I point out that authority belongs to God and it is then vested in Jesus. And that is the heart of the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, is that Scripture bears witness to Jesus, who is the one, who is the culmination of the whole great Old Testament tradition. The great river of Israel scriptures comes together and goes over this extraordinary waterfall which is the life and teach, teaching and death and resurrection ascension of Jesus. There's this huge splash. And the early writers are the ones who see that great splash and who say, let me tell you what just happened. And they are the ones who are close up to that and who are excited to continue the metaphor. They've been splashed about, they're getting wet, but they're telling you eagerly this is what that was all about. And so as then to continue the metaphor, as the waterfall then turns into a new river and becomes a broad wide river, including many bits and pieces, then people have to go back to that initial thing. Cause that's what made us who we are. And how do we know about Jesus? How do we know what that initial impact was? Well, thank the Lord we have these early documents. Now, of course, in the second century, there were debates. Some people thought that maybe one or two of the other books, like the shepherd of Hermas, which is in the books that we call the Apostolic Father, some people really loved the shepherd of Hermas, wished it could be in the New Testament, but they knew it, it wasn't written by an apostle. Now we today might say, well, we're not absolutely sure that 2 Peter was written by Peter himself. So maybe that was a mistake. But actually the church as a whole said no. That has actually a ring of early authenticity about it. I remember JND Kelly, the great patristic scholar who was lecturing here in Oxford when I was a student. Kelly wrote a commentary on the Petrine epistles. And Kelly was an expert on the early fathers all the way up to the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds and definitions. He knew those early fathers like the back of his hand and he said, but actually these letters do not belong to that patristic period, they predate it. He, as a specialist in the patristic period, knew, felt in his bones that those letters had to be earlier than that. Now those debates rumble on, but the great thing is I don't see anything actually hinges on them. What matters is the great substantial body of teaching which converges not on the nitpicking little bits here and there. Oh, maybe there's a phrase in one line in Paul which uses a word in a different sense from a similar bit in Luke or something. Well, big deal. Give me a break. Let's get to the stuff of what's actually going on here. So I would say what really counts is that Jesus is the one in whom God has acted decisively. And then by the Spirit, Jesus followers are enabled to understand what it was that just happened and make the results of that available to the world. That of course gets us into the question of scripture and tradition, which I think is going to come up in another question. But that's probably enough to put some key things at least on the table.
- [12:20]
A
Yeah, we're certainly going to go towards a question on scripture and tradition soon. But before that we've got some good follow up questions about how do we deal with parts of the Bible and that might seem to be on first investigation, contradicting itself. So we've got one question from Chris Graham. He asks the story of the demoniac named Legion in that we seem to have different variations in all three accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke, specifically the name of the town, the number of people possessed and whether they stayed on that side of the sea. And I'm assuming that I'm. That there's more I'm not aware of. I can understand these differences from the perspective of three different communities knowing their version of the story, which ultimately probably gives credibility to the story or a version of actually happening. However, how does one read it through the lens of the infallible word of God? Now we've got a second question as well in a similar area. This is from Jim Gibson. He said, I listened to your great episode on February 23, 2025. Good to hear you encourage us to ask questions that have been bugging us about supposed biblical inconsistencies. John Dominic Crosson's approach to the historical Jesus tries to take an almost forensic approach to reading the New Testament. He compares the four Gospel accounts and highlights what he considers significant inconsistencies. For example, he points to Luke's Gospel, where the holy family traveled back to Bethlehem in response to a Roman census. He believes this account is fictional because a Roman census would not have required people to return to their ancestral cities. So how can we reconcile the material difference in the four Gospels while maintaining our faith? They were all written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Well, there you go, Tom. Big questions from Chris Graham and Jim Gibson about what do we do when it seems like some of the precise details in the Gospels don't always look like they're lining up.
- [14:33]
B
Yeah, this is of course, a very well known puzzle. I would say I've known Dom Crossen on and off, not recently because I haven't been going to conferences since COVID but I used to know Dom crossen in the 90s quite well and we did public debates and so on, and I wrote up my critique of him in the relevant section of my book, Jesus and the Victory of God. And Crosson of course, has responded to that and we've gone to and fro. But if you're interested in my take on Crosson's take, then that's the place to go. But I would say there's two different questions there, actually. One is internal apparent contradictions between Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the other, which Crosson is highlighting as well, Luke says something which we think from what we know of Roman law mightn't in fact have been the case. Now that's a very different set of issues because our knowledge of everything in ancient history tends to be pretty sketchy. We've got a passage in Cicero maybe, or a little line in Seneca or something here and something there. We really can't say with any precision that all Roman society worked exactly like this. We're talking about an empire that went all the way from Spain in the west to Egypt in the east and north and south and North Africa, et cetera. It's highly unlikely that it was all administered exactly the same way. And if you find something in the later code of Justinian or whatever, don't be fooled, that may be somebody tidying it up three or four centuries later rather than this is actually how it worked out on the ground. So I would say we just don't know enough about Roman law to be able to say, no, no, no, they wouldn't have done it like that. And when we do find out new things again, and again we sort of turn around and say, oh, well, actually maybe that's what that was about. I mean, like the famous one about the census where in Luke it says this was the first census. And then it uses the Greek word protos, which means first, and then it has a genitive and people have said, oh, it's the one that was the first census, which was when Quirinius was governor of Syria. But actually protos with the genitive that follows there probably means this one was before the one when Quirinius was governor of Syria. William Temple pointed this out two generations ago, but people still trot out the other interpretation as though, oh, well, silly old Luke got it wrong. Well, I'm sorry, we just need to suspend judgment on some of these things. As for the different, the variations, I remember puzzling about when I was a student, very worried about Matthew says there were two demoniacs and Mark says there was only one. And what's happened? Is it that Peter, in telling the story and Mark has, in the tradition, Mark has got it from Peter. Is it that Peter doesn't want to make things too complex so he just mentions the one? And then Matthew, who has been actually thinking about it and hearing what was going on there actually there were two. So let's put them both in. You know, that has never bothered me. If there were two, then there was certainly one. And everyone, when they tell a story, tells it differently. I mean, one of the things that people don't realize is how eyewitness testimony works. This is a well known point, but it maybe does need to be made again and again that if you have, please God, no, a road accident outside the window and then the police come round. It's extraordinary to hear the varieties of the one person saying, the blue car was heading this way very fast and the red car was coming that way. And the other one says, no, it was the other way around, the red car was there. And it's quite extraordinary how quickly testimonies diverge. And I think what we've got in the New Testament is three, sometimes more versions where we could have had 30 or 40 different versions. If they'd asked all the people who were in the Decapolis at the time or all the people who were in Jerusalem at the time, what they saw on that day, we might have had a much wider range. And the gospel writers, I don't think are 18th century rationalists, I think they're 1st century storytellers. And the idea that inspiration must mean they got every last syllable. What you'd have seen in a video camera at the time. I think that's an unnecessary modern rationalization. And as I say, I said in the answer to the previous question, I think that is in the service of trying to shore up a kind of rationalist view of infallibility or inerrancy of Scripture in order to make that we don't slide back into the arms of the Pope. I mean, that was how many Protestants used to see it these days. It's also, of course, what people being worried about sliding back into the arms of the liberals or those who say, you know, the things that you're liable to read in the Bible, they ain't necessarily so and so on. And of course, because fundamentalists have beat people over the head with Bibles, other people have reacted against that and said, hang on, there's stuff in there which is really difficult. And so these questions get muddled up with our cultural question and the social implications of those cultural questions as we see in the fundamentalist versus modernist controversy in the States in the first half of the 20th century with things like the Scopes trial and so on. So I think we need to back off from those too quick confrontations. It's like the difference between Matthew's genealogy in Matthew Chapter one and Luke's genealogy in Chapter three. I don't know what your take on that is, Mike, but I remember when I was first in New Zealand On a visit 20 or more years ago, and somebody pointing out that the Maori tribes who had come to New Zealand in, I think there were six original boats. Local Mori people to this day can tell you which of the boats their ancestors came in. But because there's been a lot of intermarrying since then, everybody could probably have three or four or five different genealogies, and they might all actually be true. Actually, in my own family, my father did some family research after he'd come back from being a prisoner of war. I think it was part of his therapy. And he discovered that he and my mother had in fact been fifth cousins once removed because of a marriage between two families back in the 18th century. And so I have two genealogies myself. I can tell it this way, I can tell it that way. And in fact, I am my own sixth cousin once removed. So let's lighten up about some of these things. And the point is not can we prove every last syllable of this according to some rat nationalist scheme. The point is, here is the great narrative that the utter consistency of Jesus announcement of the kingdom of God and his dying and rising again. That's what matters, not being able to pick away at the tiny little details that then will come up.
- [21:29]
A
I think it was even John Calvin said that the evangelists are not always exact on the details. And that's because they're writing according to first century standards of history, which is a world without footnotes. It's a world without quotation marks. It's a world where you have more of a literary purpose and you're trying to have a particular effect upon an audience. And it doesn't matter if there's a little bit of variation in the way you tell it. That's a part of the artistic license. So, yeah.
- [21:55]
B
And actually, it's interesting that when you say first century standards, anyone who writes actual history today knows that at every point when you're writing a history, whether it's of the Civil War or Napoleon or whatever, you are making choices about which sources to go with, how to line them up, how to join up the bits and pieces. Other historians might make different choices, faced with the same thing. So it's actually any serious practicing historian knows that it's not about pretending we've got a video camera and knowing exactly what was there.
- [22:28]
A
Yeah, I mean, and Augustine, I think, did try a Latin version of the video camera in his harmony of the Gospels or, you know, his attempt to kind of reconcile all of them. He was trying to take that. But, you know, other people have wrestled with the same question. A book I recommend these days is by Michael Lacona called Jesus Contradicted. And that's where he kind of goes into them and he explains it, you know, in light of ancient historiography, looking at people like Plutarch, who did his, like, parallel lives, where he is kind of, you know, picking and choosing details about how he tells a particular story.
- [23:03]
B
Yeah, that's great. That's great.
- [23:04]
A
Well, that's probably a good point for us to take a break, but don't go too far. In a minute, we're going to have a question about whether it's okay to interpret scripture against the grain of tradition.
- [23:20]
B
If you've shopped online, chances are you've.
- [23:22]
A
Bought from a business powered by Shopify.
- [23:24]
B
You know that purple shop pay button you see at checkout, the one that makes buying so incredibly easy?
- [23:29]
A
That's Shopify. And there's a reason so many businesses sell with it, because Shopify makes it.
- [23:34]
B
Incredibly easy to start and run your business.
- [23:38]
A
Shopify is the commerce platform behind 10%.
- [23:41]
B
Of all e commerce in the US Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com promo.
- [23:48]
A
Go to shopify.com promo Are you feeling.
- [23:53]
B
More fulfilled now that you're back to work?
- [23:57]
A
No, I need a vacation.
- [23:59]
B
See the movie that critics are saying is an awesome look at that crowd pleasing, fist pumping all out brawl of a film. Right about that.
- [24:12]
A
They're coming after our family.
- [24:15]
B
Go fix this. Oh my. Nobody 2. Rated R only in theaters now.
- [24:23]
A
Shopping is hard, right? But I found a better way.
- [24:26]
B
Stitch Fix online. Personal styling makes it easy. I just give my stylist my size.
- [24:30]
A
Style and budget preferences.
- [24:32]
B
I order boxes when I want and how I want. No subscription required. And he sends just for me pieces plus outfit recommendations and styling tips. I keep woodworks and send back the rest. It's so easy. Make style easy. Get started today@stitch fix.com Spotify that's stitchfix.com Spotify.
- [24:57]
A
Welcome back. Well, we are continuing to look at some of the hard questions we've been sent about the Bible. And this time we have one from Bridget Stewart. She's got a really good question about when is it okay to go against tradition. Now, this is what Bridget says. She says, I know that N.T. wright is a big Romans fan, as am I. I can't help but see Paul explaining in his writings, albeit not only in Romans, the symbolism found in the Garden of Eden story. Now, at this point, Bridget goes on at some length to describe her particular question or her particular view about the creation of Adam and Eve, how that relates to Jesus as the true Adam and the different accounts of creation in Genesis chapter one and in Genesis chapter two. So she's got a specific view, she's interested on that. But she gets to the point where she asked this and Tom, I think this is a very good question. She says, the question I have is this. Should a person studying scripture be comfortable with seeing something different than what tradition has taught for such a long time? And how does that person know they aren't just seeing what they want to see? I guess. Tom, Bridget's question is, can we expect to see fresh and new things in scripture or does that mean we're on a license to heresy island? Or should we be cautious when going against the great tradition of the church in the normal or usual way of reading Scripture? Tom, what's your thoughts? What's your way of answering Bridget's question?
- [26:43]
B
Yeah, thank you for that. And obviously this is a crucial issue and actually many clergy meet this when they preach a sermon trying to explore something that a passage of scripture has said. And then Somebody meets them at the door and says, well, vicar, I've never heard it put like that before. And you have to think, oh, is that a rebuke? Or is it an exciting moment? Is it a way of saying, wow, that's opened up the Scripture in a new way? Or is it a way of saying, if you preach like that, we'll not have you back in this pulpit, thank you very much. And I want to say there's no one size fits all. There are many, many, many traditions that have grown up in different parts of the church. Different ways of construing certain bits of Scripture, different ways of interpreting others, and again and again they have to be challenged. I mean, so the view which I think I share with most mainstream Anglicans and most actually, de facto at least mainstream people in most other denominations, is that Scripture is basic. Tradition is in principle something which can tell us what wise people from the past have said about Scripture. Tradition is the story of the church reading Scripture, after all. But since those different people who've read scripture haven't always agreed with themselves, then it is open then for fresh readings continually to be going back and saying, I really find help with this particular teacher from the 4th century, from the 15th, from the 17th, whatever it may be. When I read what that person wrote, I found this Scripture coming alive for me in a new way. Now, the trouble with that is that just because a bit of Scripture comes alive for you, that doesn't necessarily mean that you now have the inside track on what that passage always meant, could only mean and will always mean. Mike and I have both had the experience of working with the Gospels and Paul for much of our adult lives. And again and again, there are many things which I've seen in Paul which I now want to say, yeah, that is part of it, but there is another dimension. There are larger issues there. And I'm not getting that from the tradition, I'm getting it from history. Because the history is telling me what a first century Judean reading their scriptures might have meant by a phrase like that. In a way which by the third century, the early church tradition was really out of touch with the way in which a 1st century Judean might have been longing for the kingdom of God, might have expected God's kingdom to arrive on earth as in heaven. By the 3rd and 4th and 5th century, they're asking different questions for different comprehensible historical reasons, and they're, as it were, making scripture answer those questions. This comes to a climax, of course, in the 16th century with the Reference Reformation, where you get the great theologians like Luther and Calvin and my hero Tyndale and so on, who are faced with the medieval system of how your soul can get to heaven. And the medieval theory that there was this thing called Purgatory, which you had to go through unless you were a very, very special saint. And the Purgatory tradition goes back to the 10th or 11th century, but then is rooted in ancient paganism. Back from that. Some people try and trace it further back, but that's actually very dodgy. And I shouldn't try that if I were you, especially Teuton and people like that. They didn't believe in the later doctrine of purgatory. But anyway, the point is this. By the 16th century, that's the question on the table. And the Reformers go back to the Bible, which is the right thing to do in order to answer that question, can I go straight to heaven or will I have to spend time in purgatory? And the Reformers do their best to say no. Once you have believed in Jesus, once you are baptized, once you are living as a member of the Messiah, then when you die, death finishes all the sin which remains in you. So there's no need for purgatory and you don't need to be punished for your sin. Cause Jesus has already taken that punishment. So they did a great job of standing on Scripture against the tradition. My problem then is that they were still addressing the question that the Middle Ages had asked, instead of the question the first century had asked, which was not how can my soul get up to heaven, but how can God come and dwell with his people on earth as in John 14, and say, Jesus promises, my father and I will come and we'll make our home with you. And that sense of God's homecoming is something that the Middle Ages seem to have almost lost. And so there are huge things there, both in the medieval tradition and in the Reformation tradition, where I wanna say I can see why you would get there. But actually when I read those texts in their first century context and think about the kingdom of God and think about the work of Jesus, I want to say we need to critique that in the name of Scripture itself. This is obviously a very, very complicated issue because no one person can master all the different traditions which are out there. And there are many times when tradition, I think, has seriously led the Church astray. As a good Anglican, I would say that to my Roman Catholic friends about some of the traditions about the mother of the Lord, about Mary, I value Mary very highly. She obviously is the one who was graced by God to be the mother of God's own. So that is the most extraordinary thing. But the ways in which the Roman Catholic tradition has surrounded that and interpreted it, I think can be and have been misleading. So again and people, I fully expect my Roman Catholic friends to come back at me and say, well, as for you Anglicans, fair enough, let's have that discussion. But the point is to appeal to Scripture, not against all tradition, but listening to the traditional ways the Scripture has been in interpreted, grateful for the many, many insights that many wise people have had about it over the years, but also prepared to be critical of places where they may have actually veered off this way or that. And that's a process which still happens. So the scripture tradition thing, it's a matter then of believing in the Holy Spirit. And Jesus says, the Spirit will lead you into all truth. That doesn't mean that everything that the later church has thought might be true is in fact the work of the Spirit. We have to have discernment. Fortunately, that's one of the things that we are encouraged to pray for and told that we will be given if we ask for it.
- [33:08]
A
That's exactly right, Tom. I think it's good to have a certain degree of affection and loyalty to tradition, but it can never be done. Infallible. I mean, I tell my students the Tradition is simply what the church has learned from reading Scripture. But not everything they learned was infallible. And sometimes they were products of their own age just as much as we are products of our age. And even the reformers who tried to leverage scripture over a corrupt and misguided medieval tradition, they ended up creating their own tradition that sometimes departed from Scripture itself. Which is why in every age, the church needs to be Semper Reformation, constantly reforming, questioning its institutions and traditions to bring itself in accordance with the word of God.
- [34:01]
B
Absolutely.
- [34:02]
A
Well, that's all we have time for today. But that's been a good episode, Tom. That was a big Bible episode. We've got, you know, conversations and questions about the canon, gospel, contradictions, scripture and tradition. It was all really good. If you like content like that, don't forget to check out our back catalog. Catalog. On previous episodes and previous seasons of Ask nt Write Anything, there's been a whole bunch of questions on similar topics. And we too want to get more questions, fresh questions from you. So go to askantyrite.com to send us your questions. Otherwise, it's farewell from me, Mike Bird.
- [34:42]
B
And farewell from me, Tom Wright.
- [34:44]
A
And we look forward to seeing you on the next episode of Ask NT Radio. Write anything.
- [35:14]
B
You say. You'll never join the Navy. That you'd never track storms brewing in.
- [35:18]
A
The Atlantic and skydiving could never be.
- [35:23]
B
Part of your commute. You'd never climb Mount Fuji on a port visit, or fly so fast you.
- [35:31]
A
Break the sound barrier.
- [35:34]
B
Joining the Navy sounds crazy. Saying never actually is. Start your journey journey@navy.com America's Navy forged.
- [35:42]
A
By the Sea Support for this podcast and the following message comes from America's Navy the Navy offers new graduates hands on training and experience in careers like computer science, aviation and medicine, plus education and sign on bonuses. Parents help your grads start their career today@navy.com.