From the Beginning: Question from a High School Student

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@deuteroKJ

that’s part of the problem…thinking our “obvious” was the ancient reader’s “obvious.” This is where Walton’s “thinking like an ancient Israelite” (or first-century Jew) perspective is so helpful.

I agree. Though, just this view alone seems to be working against something in the text too. Yes, the text is bound to its moment, but it also transcends.

@swamidass

I’d say Genesis is teaching us of our origins …How we got here, which instructs us in who we are and who is God. Origins can be described from multiple points of view (including scientific and historical). I’d say Genesis 1 was given to be understood through the ages, both in the original context and into our time. There is a timeless quality to it, which is why I resist mapping it too closely to scientific claims (which are bound to our moment).

@Philosurfer

This seems exactly right to me.

@swamidass

This works especially for those who think Gen 1 is teaching creatio ex nihilo . It’s also assuming the details of Gen 1 were revealed to the human author (within the rhetoric you’re supposing), rather than Gen 1 being a creative theological reflection apart from direct revelation.

You are right. It does seem to take that view. Though I am not sure exactly what the theological reflection could be upon if not an account of origins.

How do you bring together the timeless and situated nature of the revelation? I think the instinct behind “plain readings,” at its best, is the vernacularism of Martin Luther and a theological embrace (even if it is linguistically naive at times) of the timeless purpose and work of Scripture.

It seems that Walton’s work on ANE, and others like it, are sometimes troubled with that quality of Scripture too. In many ways, this gets back to some of the many other threads here on OT in relation to NT, and even science.