Wheaton's John Walton on Genesis 1

[GenemZ]

Thank you. I think that probably explains the problem. The Modern Hebrew Bible you were using (top link above) does not appear to have the guttural punctuation marks included; thus, you get the prime word but without the markings that indicate tenses in verbs, for example. The second link you included does have those marks, however. Closely examine the difference between the beth in the verb used in Genesis 1:1: בָּרָא
and the beth in the verb used in Genesis 1:21: וַיִּבְרָא

As I mentioned earlier:[/font][/b]

Just the same... it is "bara", meaning to create something out from nothing. Not, what John Walton has been toying with. I believe he feels forced to do that, because he can not reconcile Genesis 1 & 2, with the understanding he now has. So, he (I believe) has created a way in his thinking to do so. Yet, the land animals were not "Bara." Only the sea and air creatures. So, his idea of initiating a new system (whatever he was getting at I do not even recall at this point) can not apply. For, all were being produced in God's mind in Genesis 1 on equal footing to being a new form of creation.

Now, the reason God did not "bara" the land animals is because the material to make them already was created.

"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." Genesis 2:19 niv

Land creatures = from substance of the land.

But?


Water creatures = from the substance of water?

Air creatures = from the substance of air?

Adam's body was formed from the elements of the land!

But! God could not create flying creatures from their habitat, out from the elements of air! Water creatures? Out from H2O!? They would have very weird body structures if that were the case. Not able to be part of the food chain. So, with these, he created them "bara", out from nothing. Yet, he skips "bara" with the land animals, because the elements needed for their creation pre-existed the act of their creation.

Walton, if his theory were to be consistent, would have to apply equally to the land animals, as well as the sea, and air. They don't. Animals were an old thing? Only air and sea creatures were new formations?

I stopped listening to his novel concept once this doctrinal reality hit me, so forgive me if I can no longer recall what Walton was attributing to "bara." For I realized, that if his theory were to remain consistent, he just bumped the land creatures into a different category of being created. Not so. All were equally new in their function. Only difference, where they functioned. Land, air, or sea...

" All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another."
1 Corinthians 15:39-40 niv

Yet, all types of bodies bound to earth are made essentially of the same basic elements. Man eats food from each category of creature to support his physical needs. Imagine a creature who's body was based upon only the elements of air? Water? God had to "bara" those. Create out from nothing.

The land creatures already had the elements of the earth created. That is why their bodies (and Adam's) were "formed" [yatsar] from the elements of the earth. The soul of Adam was "bara" when God created man in his image. That created (bara) soul was later breathed into the body that the Lord had formed [yatsar].

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Sinai]

Just the same... it is "bara", meaning to create something out from nothing. Not, what John Walton has been toying with. I believe he feels forced to do that, because he can not reconcile Genesis 1 & 2, with the understanding he now has. So, he (I believe) has created a way in his thinking to do so. Yet, the land animals were not "Bara." Only the sea and air creatures. So, his idea of initiating a new system (whatever he was getting at I do not even recall at this point) can not apply. For, all were being produced in God's mind in Genesis 1 on equal footing to being a new form of creation.

Now, the reason God did not "bara" the land animals is because the material to make them already was created.

Again, the verb used in Genesis 1:21 might not necessarily carry the connotation of being created out of nothing. As I mentioned before, both בָּרָא(bara) and ִבְרָא (yivra) are the same basic verb (translated as "to create"). Both use the same basic characters of the Hebrew alphabet: beth, resh and aleph. The difference is in the guttural punctuation marks around the beth--but that also makes a subtle difference in the verbs. The perfect tense (bara) denotes action that was completed in a single event or occurrance and in the Hebrew also conveys the idea that the creation was out from nothing (as you did an excellent job of pointing out in your posts). The imperfect tense (yivra, which is used in 1:21) denotes action that was continuing over a period of time. Both verb forms are translated as "created" and both are verbs applicable to God rather than to man.

It might also be noted in passing that some of the ancient Hebrew sages referred to bara as meaning that God created out of nothing other than Himself. In other words, they indicated that God may have used some of His own pure substance (whether that be energy or spirit or just His deity) for the creation. I personally don't know that there is any significance to those comments, but thought it was interesting in light of the similar wording in current scientific cosmological theory.....

 

[GenemZ]

Again, the verb used in Genesis 1:21 might not necessarily carry the connotation of being created out of nothing. As I mentioned before, both בָּרָא(bara) and ִבְרָא (yivra) are the same basic verb (translated as "to create"). Both use the same basic characters of the Hebrew alphabet: beth, resh and aleph. The difference is in the guttural punctuation marks around the beth--but that also makes a subtle difference in the verbs. The perfect tense (bara) denotes action that was completed in a single event or occurrance and in the Hebrew also conveys the idea that the creation was out from nothing (as you did an excellent job of pointing out in your posts). The imperfect tense (yivra, which is used in 1:21) denotes action that was continuing over a period of time. Both verb forms are translated as "created" and both are verbs applicable to God rather than to man.

It might also be noted in passing that some of the ancient Hebrew sages referred to bara as meaning that God created out of nothing other than Himself. In other words, they indicated that God may have used some of His own pure substance (whether that be energy or spirit or just His deity) for the creation. I personally don't know that there is any significance to those comments, but thought it was interesting in light of the similar wording in current scientific cosmological theory.....

FYI. The original texts do not use vowel points. I have seen the Torah opened before my eyes. It does not contain the vowel points that we are so used to seeing. Realize this, please. I was brought up Jewish. I know this to be a fact. Those points were added later on by men for those who don't know Hebrew.

Interesting point of contention. My pastor who studied Greek and Hebrew in College, later at Dallas Seminary (under Lewis Sperry Chafer), and for the rest of his pastorate of more than 50 years... says that "bara" in verse 21 indicates an instant creation... just like the Heavens and Earth in verse 1. After all, all this aquatic and flying creatures were created in one day, not over an extended period of time. Let's stick with what it says?

And, let's also not forget. My Israeli cousin who speaks fluent Hebrew, said that the word which appears in Genesis 1:21, is "bara." He also mentioned that "yivra" is "bara" in the future tense, but did not say it appears in 1:21.

I think we are witnessing to some of the exegetical 'hocus pocus' that certain ones try to get away with. If I had not been shown the same thing consistently over the last twenty odd years, I may have considered Walton's idea. But, my mind flashed over to how the land animals were not spoken of in reference to "bara." So, no matter how he wishes to see the meaning of "bara," the manifestation of the land creatures not being "bara," throws a wrench in those gears that were spinning in his head.

If what Walton said were true, to be consistent, "bara" would also have to apply to the land creatures being created on that day. "Bara" does not appear in their creation. So? According to what I see Walton, saying? That just the land creatures were just a rehashing of the same old thing that somehow lived before? Same old function? I think not. Fossil records reveal both air and sea species existed.

Yet, from all this debate? I can now see my own inconsistency in some of what I have been believing, too.

It goes to show you. We are all in the same boat. And, its an either "oar" situation at times, for all of us.

"Here, Mr. Walton... let me row for a while. You take a break."

Yet, I think the major "key" to understanding the differences between Genesis 1, and 2, is that in Genesis 1, it says at times that, "God saw."

We do not see in Genesis 2, the words, " God saw." In Genesis 2, we are made witnesses to the creation being made manifest. In Genesis 1, it is said that only "God saw."

Genesis 1 is most likely an actual creation and manifestation of the foundational needs, land mass and water, and God is there picturing in his omnsicience ("God saw") what was to be made manifest in Chapter 2.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Didaskomenos]

Lazarus, come forth!​

Hey, look! I've just raised a thread from the dead!​

Genez, I emailed Dr. Walton with your main point of rebuttal, and he responded thus:​

Dear Mr. Douglas,

​

​

Thank you for your interest in my presentation on Genesis 1. You have probably anticipated my answer. The first is to emphasize that Genesis 1:1 refers to everything, not just two distinct entities designated individually as "heaven" and "earth"--therefore including land animals. Most interpreters agree that 1:1 is a merism referring to the entire cosmos. The key question then becomes why the verb is reiterated in 1:21. Granted that there are a series of objects to the verb in that sentence, the lead and, I would argue, most important object is the great sea creatures. The importance of this statement can be understood when seen against the ancient Near Eastern background. There the primeval sea creatures stood in a different place in the cosmos and had some autonomous existence. The text of Genesis is making it clear that God bara' - d them as well. Furthermore, the text would be under no obligation to use the verb in every category (especially given the universal thrust of 1:1). As you may know, much of this is covered in more detail in my Genesis commentary (Zondervan, 2001).​

​

I hope that helps.​

​

Blessings,​

John​

​

​

The use of bara' in v. 21 is thus doing what the whole early Genesis mythology sets out to do: revise the current ANE misconceptions about cosmogeny and cosmology. The sun, moon, plants and animals were seen as created by the gods (just the wrong ones), but other creatures were seen as almost independent and parallel of the divine order. The polemical nature of the passage thus assures everyone that they, too, were not only under God's dominion, but had been created by him. Genesis 1 does argue for the "creation" of the universe - but its primary goal is to show that it was the Hebrew God that established order in the universe.​

​

I think this reasonable response goes to show that dismissing a whole argument based upon one perceived problem without seriously trying to hear out a defense for the problem shows a mind that was already made up before engaging the argument. Walton may be wrong, but I'm going to sift through the problems and see if his view holds water. One reason I put up the link here was to see if there were valid criticisms. Genez, because you at least helped me come up with one problem in the theory, I beg you to finish the presentation and see if there's anything else.​