Wheaton's John Walton on Genesis 1

[Didaskomenos]

Although this flash reproduction of a conference talk at Wheaton College might take a little while to load and then to watch/hear, it's worth the time, because it is truly one of the most remarkable insights/interpretations I've seen lately. It is a literary observation, and lends itself to no scientific YEC, OEC, or evolutionary theory. What do you think?
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/conferences03/Sci_Sym.html
The gist is that the "creation account" in Genesis 1 does not concern itself with the creation of matter and "things" in the universe, but rather was meant to establish God as the one who ordains the purposes and functions behind all things. Cross-referencing Genesis 1 with Ancient Near Eastern literature, Walton argues that the functions and roles of the sun, dry land, etc. are parallel to the Sumerian/Akkadian concept of the ME/parsu. It's rather compelling.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

What if you can reference it to other works? Wasn't this the first event in human history? I don't think it has competition

 

[KleinerApfel]

What if you can reference it to other works? Wasn't this the first event in human history? I don't think it has competition

Good point.

Blessings, Susana

 

[Didaskomenos]

Let's limit discussion on this thread to those who actually have looked at Walton's presentation.

 

[GenemZ]

Although this flash reproduction of a conference talk at Wheaton College might take a little while to load and then to watch/hear, it's worth the time, because it is truly one of the most remarkable insights/interpretations I've seen lately. It is a literary observation, and lends itself to no scientific YEC, OEC, or evolutionary theory. What do you think?
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/conferences03/Sci_Sym.html
The gist is that the "creation account" in Genesis 1 does not concern itself with the creation of matter and "things" in the universe, but rather was meant to establish God as the one who ordains the purposes and functions behind all things. Cross-referencing Genesis 1 with Ancient Near Eastern literature, Walton argues that the functions and roles of the sun, dry land, etc. are parallel to the Sumerian/Akkadian concept of the ME/parsu. It's rather compelling.

I listened for about five minutes. The man is playing with a novel concept that runs contrary to every ancient rabbinical teaching that I know of, and runs against Hebrew scholars I know of. He has missed certain points, and because of this, feels free to interject and superimpose his solution to a problem that does not exist. God created [bara] "out from nothing" the Heavens and earth... Yet, He does not "create out from nothing" the land dwelling animals. But! He does so [bara] with the air and water creatures. This inconsistency of method in creation of the different types of animals leaves his theory hanging with nothing to rest its feet on.

The man teaching was excited about what he thought he had, and as a result, kept building one false concept upon another. We all do it at times.
The Jews did not know what matter consisted of. But, they knew what matter was. They knew what immaterial was... They were not simply concerned with function. We see terms as "brass", "gold," "wood," etc; used throughout the Bible. They had a concept of matter, and not just function (as Walton claims).

If I were uninformed and young in the Lord, I would possibly find him interesting and amusing... But, as it stands right now, I found him painful to listen to. He sounds really convinced that he should be heard. But, I am not sure that he is really convinced in what he claims to be truth, he really knows to be truth. I believe he is happy that he found something to discuss and worthy of debate... but I do not get a sense of resolve from him.

Interesting theory. But? as far as what orthodox teaching provides? No. For example, in religious Jewish circles, the Hebrew word "bara" is only used in conjunction with God himself. Never man. For the religious rabbis see God as the only one who can create something "out from nothing." If it were, as Walton claims, only concepts of function God was manufacturing, they would not hold such a view, and would apply the word "bara" to man, as well. Like I said... A novel point of view. But, it does not pass the test.
Grace and peace, Gene

 

[KleinerApfel]

Let's limit discussion on this thread to those who actually have looked at Walton's presentation.

You're right, I should listen to it before commenting.
I was only commenting on your brief assessment of it.

I have tried this morning to load it up and it's not working. I'll try when I've more time.


Blessings, Susana

 

[Ron21647]

I listened to the entire thing, (it is right at an hour), and I liked it. I haven't made my mind up as to whether I agree with all of it, but I did find it very interesting.

Ron

 

[Didaskomenos]

I listened for about five minutes. The man is playing with a novel concept that runs contrary to every ancient rabbinical teaching that I know of, and runs against Hebrew scholars I know of. He has missed certain points, and because of this, feels free to interject and superimpose his solution to a problem that does not exist. God created [bara] "out from nothing" the Heavens and earth... Yet, He does not "create out from nothing" the land dwelling animals. But! He does so [bara] with the air and water creatures. This inconsistency of method in creation of the different types of animals leaves his theory hanging with nothing to rest its feet on.

The man teaching was excited about what he thought he had, and as a result, kept building one false concept upon another. We all do it at times.
The Jews did not know what matter consisted of. But, they knew what matter was. They knew what immaterial was... They were not simply concerned with function. We see terms as "brass", "gold," "wood," etc; used throughout the Bible. They had a concept of matter, and not just function (as Walton claims).

If I were uninformed and young in the Lord, I would possibly find him interesting and amusing... But, as it stands right now, I found him painful to listen to. He sounds really convinced that he should be heard. But, I am not sure that he is really convinced in what he claims to be truth, he really knows to be truth. I believe he is happy that he found something to discuss and worthy of debate... but I do not get a sense of resolve from him.

Interesting theory. But? as far as what orthodox teaching provides? No. For example, in religious Jewish circles, the Hebrew word "bara" is only used in conjunction with God himself. Never man. For the religious rabbis see God as the only one who can create something "out from nothing." If it were, as Walton claims, only concepts of function God was manufacturing, they would not hold such a view, and would apply the word "bara" to man, as well. Like I said... A novel point of view. But, it does not pass the test.
Grace and peace, Gene

I suppose I should be glad that you listened to any of it. But you missed his substantiation, all of which was after the first five minutes (he's not simply rambling for the next 55 minutes!). Walton does not claim anywhere that they had no conception of material vs. immaterial. The whole point of Genesis one in Walton's view is that NO ONE but God can establish order and control the universe. That's why "bara" was used.

Let's try this again (and thank you for your graceful response, Lord Is My Banner): let's save this thread for those who have actually viewed Walton's presentation, not simply his prologue.

 

[GenemZ]

I suppose I should be glad that you listened to any of it. But you missed his substantiation, all of which was after the first five minutes (he's not simply rambling for the next 55 minutes!). Walton does not claim anywhere that they had no conception of material vs. immaterial. The whole point of Genesis one in Walton's view is that NO ONE but God can establish order and control the universe. That's why "bara" was used.

That's fine, if you do not know where else the word appears. In Genesis 1, it is used for the creation of air and sea creatures, but not for the land creatures. Should Waton's definition only apply to the air and sea creatures, but not the land's? It makes no sense if he's to be consistent in his definition. It is used for the creation of the immaterial soul in Genesis 1:27, and is breathed into the body of Adam which was "formed and molded" in Genesis 2. There are several words used in Hebrew in Genesis 1 &2. One is for "create" [bara]. One is for manufacture (plan and design) [asah]. And, one is for forming and molding from what exists [yatsar]. Yet, one more appears for the body of the woman. "Banah" is to "build." Her body was built upon the material removed from Adam's side. God added to the material removed, like he did with the few loaves and few fish to feed the thousands.

As far as I can see, Mr Walton is confusing the meanings of Asah, with Bara. He is superimposing the meaning attributed more freely associated to Asah than to Bara. Then is he is presenting a case in his thinking to justify it. He is partially correct in some of his assumptions. But, he is missing the special sacred meaning of the word "bara" assigned by the ancient Jewish scholars who were believers. They would have never associated "bara" with a mere man. Walton's definition blurs a distinction.

If you want to believe what he tells you? Fine. I do not wish to argue on this point. But, I would not stop there. I would do my own research if I were you. And, never stop.

God did create man and woman in his image in Genesis 1. That was the immaterial soul that was created in a "shadow image" [betselem].

Grace and peace, Gene

 

[KleinerApfel]

I have listened to this now, and I don't really get it.

I kept waiting for it all to fall into place, giving a complete picture of the creation events according to John Walton.

Maybe I missed something, but was not impressed enough to try again.

He talks a lot about "function" as if that explains everything, but doesn't really explain what he believes actually happened when God made the earth and the heavens; whether in 6 days or millions of years.

This seems like an attempt to blur generally understood boundaries concerning meanings/usage of words to satisfy everyone; young earth creationists, old earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, gap theorists, insert your alternative option here...!

I personally don't think these ideas will satisfy many people, regardless of their current stance.

Blessings, Susana

 

[Smidlee]

I believe he made some interesting point which I knew before hand that the Bible was written that a common person in that day could understand it. In some points he probably right yet I did notice he left out the part on the third day where God divides the Sea from the dry land which is called Earth. Also I was waiting to hear what he was going to say when it came to man but nothing.( or did I missed something?)

This seems like an attempt to blur generally understood boundaries concerning meanings/usage of words to satisfy everyone; young earth creationists, old earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, gap theorists, insert your alternative option here...!

I agree, this was my impression too. He seems a little wishy-washy when asked about where the 7 day idea come from.

 

[Sinai]

God created [bara] "out from nothing" the Heavens and earth... Yet, He does not "create out from nothing" the land dwelling animals. But! He does so [bara] with the air and water creatures. This inconsistency of method in creation of the different types of animals leaves his theory hanging with nothing to rest its feet on.

The first chapter of Genesis uses bara three times: once in the beginning when God created the universe, and then twice when mentioning that the humankind were created in His image, though they were male and female. Other verbs are used for the rest of creation.....

For example, in religious Jewish circles, the Hebrew word "bara" is only used in conjunction with God himself. Never man. For the religious rabbis see God as the only one who can create something "out from nothing."

True--and a good point....

 

[Didaskomenos]

I believe he made some interesting point which I knew before hand that the Bible was written that a common person in that day could understand it. In some points he probably right yet I did notice he left out the part on the third day where God divides the Sea from the dry land which is called Earth. Also I was waiting to hear what he was going to say when it came to man but nothing.( or did I missed something?)

He didn't leave out anything about day 3. He said that was part of establishing the basis for mankind. Maybe he was unclear, but he did go into a bit about how a system is only functional as far as it relates to mankind, thus instituting dry land as mankind's dwelling was a supremely important establishment.

I agree, this was my impression too. He seems a little wishy-washy when asked about where the 7 day idea come from.

The fact is, the importance of the number seven especially as it relates to the seven day week and the seven day dedication of temples was common in the ANE. Just because we don't know why this is so pervasive doesn't mean anyone's "wishy-washy".

 

[Didaskomenos]

I have listened to this now, and I don't really get it.

I kept waiting for it all to fall into place, giving a complete picture of the creation events according to John Walton.

I did, too, until I realized that he believes what he said: Genesis 1 was not meant to and does not give a complete picture of creation events.

He talks a lot about "function" as if that explains everything, but doesn't really explain what he believes actually happened when God made the earth and the heavens; whether in 6 days or millions of years.

That's because you want to either embrace him or dismiss him based upon his view of creation rather than because of his expert opinion on the ANE and its relations to the Old Testament. Walton isn't some upstart who looks up numbers in the Strong's reference. He knows multiple ancient Semitic languages.

This seems like an attempt to blur generally understood boundaries concerning meanings/usage of words to satisfy everyone; young earth creationists, old earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, gap theorists, insert your alternative option here...!

I personally don't think these ideas will satisfy many people, regardless of their current stance.

Science works best when it does what it does with as little interference from ideology as possible. Because you cannot pigeon-hole his personal view means that he is simply presenting data as he analyses it, not that he is trying to "blur" everything to make everyone happy.

 

[Smidlee]

Science works best when it does what it does with as little interference from ideology as possible.

I have to disagree there. It ideology and personal beliefs is what drives science. IMHO it the same as saying "a car works best without gas".

 

[Didaskomenos]

[hypothetical] I like insects. I always have. Ever since I was a little boy, I've loved insects. I grow up and become an entomologist. This is my personal interest. But what ideology or personal belief system should reflect the way I record the data about a newly-discovered specimen? Hence I think, "I will be lending some bit of credence to the much-disputed Gelaeoptera genus (which I don't believe in) if I identify this insect using a particular methodology. So I'll simply say it's from another genus." [/hypothetical]

This is good science? Of course personal interests and ideologies drive science. But they shouldn't taint our assessment of the data we are driven to find. Here a guy looks at ANE religious beliefs (including the OT), finds that they follow the same vein, and concludes that there is a relation. Not only should his beliefs on Creation be formed based on sound information, but he has every right and obligation to disqualify certain sources of information (Gen. 1 here) using the tools of his trade.

 

[GenemZ]

[hypothetical] I like insects. I always have. Ever since I was a little boy, I've loved insects. I grow up and become an entomologist. This is my personal interest. But what ideology or personal belief system should reflect the way I record the data about a newly-discovered specimen? Hence I think, "I will be lending some bit of credence to the much-disputed Gelaeoptera genus (which I don't believe in) if I identify this insect using a particular methodology. So I'll simply say it's from another genus." [/hypothetical]

This is good science? Of course personal interests and ideologies drive science. But they shouldn't taint our assessment of the data we are driven to find. Here a guy looks at ANE religious beliefs (including the OT), finds that they follow the same vein, and concludes that there is a relation. Not only should his beliefs on Creation be formed based on sound information, but he has every right and obligation to disqualify certain sources of information (Gen. 1 here) using the tools of his trade.

Good science agrees with the Word of God, and the Word of God agrees with good science. Its bad science that disagrees with God's Word, and bad theology that disagrees with good science. If there is yet a conflict, one, or both, are not yet properly understood. The Bible teaches multiple creations, not evolution. Science devoid of good theology is able to make the leap to the conclusion of all creation as we see it having evolved from what existed millions of years ago. Bad science attempts to supress Divine truth. Bad theology attempts to supress scientific discovery. There are no missing links to be found. They should be in as great an abundance as the fossil record we now have. There were leaps to new creations. Science agrees with that. Bad theology (young earth creationism) is just as wrong as the evolutionist theory is.
Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Didaskomenos]

Good science agrees with the Word of God, and the Word of God agrees with good science. Its bad science that disagrees with God's Word, and bad theology that disagrees with good science. If there is yet a conflict, one, or both, are not yet properly understood. The Bible teaches multiple creations, not evolution. Science devoid of good theology is able to make the leap to the conclusion of all creation as we see it having evolved from what existed millions of years ago. Bad science attempts to supress Divine truth. Bad theology attempts to supress scientific discovery. There are no missing links to be found. They should be in as great an abundance as the fossil record we now have. There were leaps to new creations. Science agrees with that. Bad theology (young earth creationism) is just as wrong as the evolutionist theory is.
Grace and peace, GeneZ

"Science devoid of good theology is able to make the leap to the conclusion of all creation as we see it having evolved from what existed millions of years ago." As is science with good theology. Theology should not inform science. Science doesn't attempt to deal with why certain processes occur or [i/]Who[/i] might be reponsible. It has no means for investigating or verifying those questions. It's not science to answer those things.

However, understanding science will inform biblical hermeneutics - the Creation accounts of Genesis, if shown by science to be inaccurate as science/history, must be interpreted another way: either 1) as hogwash, or 2) as nonhistorical/unscientific theological statements. The curse of the modern mind is to subsume the second possibility under the first. For the theist, this is like buying an unassembled widget: when you need the square part, pick a piece up and find that it is rectangular, do you throw it out? Of course not. You realize it has another place. A theist knows that God doesn't offer hogwash for his childrens' dinner.

Regarding your problems with evolutionary theory and young earth creationism, I'd like to point out that I'm not arguing the "hard sciences" here. John Walton does not mention biology, astronomy, or geology. We are looking at a literary work and analyzing it using literary/historical techniques. History should be used to understand if a given passage is to be taken as a square, rectangle, a dowel, etc.

 

[GenemZ]

"Science devoid of good theology is able to make the leap to the conclusion of all creation as we see it having evolved from what existed millions of years ago." As is science with good theology. Theology should not inform science. Science doesn't attempt to deal with why certain processes occur or [i/]Who[/i] might be reponsible. It has no means for investigating or verifying those questions. It's not science to answer those things.

However, understanding science will inform biblical hermeneutics - the Creation accounts of Genesis, if shown by science to be inaccurate as science/history, must be interpreted another way: either 1) as hogwash, or 2) as nonhistorical/unscientific theological statements. The curse of the modern mind is to subsume the second possibility under the first. For the theist, this is like buying an unassembled widget: when you need the square part, pick a piece up and find that it is rectangular, do you throw it out? Of course not. You realize it has another place. A theist knows that God doesn't offer hogwash for his childrens' dinner.

Regarding your problems with evolutionary theory and young earth creationism, I'd like to point out that I'm not arguing the "hard sciences" here. John Walton does not mention biology, astronomy, or geology. We are looking at a literary work and analyzing it using literary/historical techniques. History should be used to understand if a given passage is to be taken as a square, rectangle, a dowel, etc.

I love the way you don't make yourself clear... Or, did you intend to say that Scripture is fantasy, at times?

Moving on... GeneZ

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Although this flash reproduction of a conference talk at Wheaton College might take a little while to load and then to watch/hear, it's worth the time, because it is truly one of the most remarkable insights/interpretations I've seen lately. It is a literary observation, and lends itself to no scientific YEC, OEC, or evolutionary theory. What do you think?
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/conferences03/Sci_Sym.html
The gist is that the "creation account" in Genesis 1 does not concern itself with the creation of matter and "things" in the universe, but rather was meant to establish God as the one who ordains the purposes and functions behind all things. Cross-referencing Genesis 1 with Ancient Near Eastern literature, Walton argues that the functions and roles of the sun, dry land, etc. are parallel to the Sumerian/Akkadian concept of the ME/parsu. It's rather compelling.

thank you very much for the link.
his distinction between function following structure vs function following purpose is worth the entire hour to listen.

overall very similiar to Kline's framework.
nice to see a strong notion of accommodationism with the ancient near eastern worldview as part of historical context.