A common objection to Christianity is that there’s supposedly a fundamental conflict between the biblical and scientific stories of the origin and development of the universe, the Earth, life, and so on and so forth.
John Walton, ((John Walton has a Ph.D. in Hebrew and Cognate Studies from the Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, Ohio.)) in his talk on “Genesis Through Ancient Eyes,” responds to this objection with the claim that the origin stories in Gen. 1–3 in the Bible are about functional rather than material origins.
In this talk, originally delivered at the BioLogos President’s Circle meeting in October 2012, Dr. John Walton discusses the origin stories of Genesis 1–3, and why their focus on function and archetypes mean there is no Biblical narrative of material origins.
This is very interesting. Walton, for example, thinks that the days in Gen. 1 are literal 24-hour days, but that they are about the inauguration of the cosmos as God’s temple, not material origins, so that this fact says nothing about the age of the universe, or the Earth, or life.
Here are the four parts of the talk (roughly 51m.16s in total), with very rough summaries:
the word bara’ (created) often refers to functional rather than material creation in the Bible
Gen. 1 focuses on functional over material origins (e.g. time, weather, food)
Gen. 1 is a temple story ((This notion helps to explain what it means for human beings to be made in the “image of God.”))
the seventh day (rest) is important in the creation story: rest expresses control over ordered system, and God comes to rest in the cosmos—not to sleep, but operate (see e.g. Psa. 132.7–8, 13–14)—and establishes it as his “home” ((Why the Sabbath, then, in light of Ex. 20.8–11? Because God’s in control, and we need to remember that—not because God decided to “take a day off.”))
the days in Gen. 1 are literal 24-hour days, but they are about the inauguration of the cosmos as God’s temple, not material origins, so this fact says nothing about the age of the universe, or the Earth, or life
the phrase “it was good” is about proper function, not morality (see e.g. Gen. 2.18)
whatever order God established was good, but not everything was ordered (e.g. sea, serpent, outside the Garden of Eden)
the second account of creation in Gen. 2–3 is a sequel to, not a synoptic retelling of, the first account in Gen. 1 (e.g. like Luke/Acts as opposed to Matthew/Mark)
the people in Gen. 1 aren’t necessarily the same as in Gen. 2–3: the second account of creation doesn’t need to fit into the sixth day in the first account of creation
the second account of creation contains archetypal rather than scientific descriptions, so there is no biblical account of material human origins
humans were made in the image of God and given priestly roles: to serve and keep (Gen. 2.15), with Eve to help Adam in his sacred task
application: we need to minister better to scientists
application: we need to do better at evangelism, and not keep people out of the kingdom because of their scientific conclusions about origins
application: we need to do better at dealing with attrition that results from young people believing that, in accepting scientific conclusions, they’re forced to give up the Bible and their faith
in summary: we need to stop making the Bible what it isn’t
Dr. John Walton: What Is the Ancient Near East[ern Context?] A Seven Minute Seminary
No comments:
Post a Comment