The problem with that is that by the time you take enough to sleep, you don’t wake up again. Plus of course you get the gastric bleeds…
Whereas, as any doctor will tell you, if you take too much paracetamol hoping not to wake up, you stay conscious long enough to change your mind, and discover you have hepatic failure and are going to die anyway.
No doubt the skeptic will tell you it was aspirin, which was why Adam got hallucinations and thought he and his wife met a talking snake.
Yes; no doubt that someone, somewhere, will try to assert that I was claiming that this particular Neanderthal skull, found with traces of salicylic acid on the teeth, was actually Adam’s skull, and the whole Biblical story resulted from a bad drug trip.
That, of course, is a totally unwarranted interpretation, but it accomplishes a predetermined purpose.
Doesn’t any one just laugh at ironies any more? : )
So, Mark --if I tell you “my wife was handed to me on a silver platter,” have I therefore denied her a normal birth and upbringing? That’s how idiom functions.
Otherwise, go tell Walton he’s a crackpot, and stick to your unwarranted dogma. I’ll continue looking at the evidence.
@gbrooks9 you are basically right, but its fine for them to hash out their own positions. @anon46279830 and @Guy_Coe, keep in mind it is more important to help people deal with their hang ups than push for our own view. The de novo creation of Adam is important, what ever your personal point of view, because it is important to other people.
Honestly, I’ve been having fun with all of you. It was a specially honored to have @Guy_Coe take a road trip down to CA to see at some Veritas Forums:
It was equally good to see @anon46279830 in St Louis, where he gave me a copy of his book and was a surprise guest on a seminary panelist.
In the end, we need to grow the Peaceful Science community. I have some important things planned in the next couple months. Focus in on guests, and make sure they are heard and welcomed. Invite more people, and lets turn this into a crowd.
Understood… that’s why you hear a lot of “what if’s” from me, because it’s the most empowering and creative way I know of to get people to confront their “hang-ups” (your words, Josh, not mine… : ).
One of my favorite book titles is “Sacred Cows Make Great Hamburgers.”
With persons like Mark, Jon and George, and others here, I feel comfortable inviting them to grind at the meat a bit.
Please forgive me guys, if my creative drumbeats cause distress more than wonder.
This is a terrible medium to really hash this stuff out amicably, though I know I would enjoy your company in person.
I have a model in mind, obviously, that I’ve worked hard to synthesize, which has led me in a completely surprising direction because of my focus on the text.Obviously, a high view of Scripture never leads everyone in the same, monolithic direction --and I’m good with that.
It’s an invitation to seek the Lord together with people I admire, in a specialty subject area that’s, potentially, of critical apologetic value to the future of the church.
A paradigm change, from my point of view, that leads to a higher evaluation by students informed by current culture AND potent biblical scholarship in context and linguistics.
If you look within the range of historical commentary, you’ll find that Mark’s view and mine are both bandied about indecisively, removing the basis for dogma on either of our parts: http://biblehub.com/genesis/2-21.htm
Scroll well down beyond the modern English translations to, say, Ellicott’s Commentary and various others below that, and you’ll at least see that I’m not just making this stuff up.
I didn’t realize that this “vision” was part of Walton’s mega-scenario…
You know, the Greeks had a story about man and woman being created as one … it may have
come to the Greeks via the Persians.
Here we are:
Proposition 8: “Forming From Dust” and “Building from Rib” Are
Archetypal Claims and Not Claims of Material Origins
In chapter 8, the formation of Adam from dust and Eve from Adam’s side is also described archetypally. In the consistency of not yielding to a material explanation of origins, Walton again attempts to show that a Hebrew word typically understood as “formed” (יצר) is not required to have a material object, although he admits that in many cases it does. The Genesis 2:7 description of Adam formed of dust is explained as an archetypal depiction of human mortality. To ancient Israelites, they knew what it was like to see ancestor’s bones decaying to dust thus seeing the evidence of mortality. Likewise, Adam’s sleep is said to depict a visionary experience of Eve as one of his whole sides and thus archetypal of an important one-flesh union in his life (Walton and Wright 2015, 80). It is not seen as an account of the actual creation of Eve. What the church has typically understood as creation events, Walton has explained as archetypal examples of life, death, and relationship between men and women."
Plato writes “Plato’s Symposium”, in which a man named Aristophanes, tells stories at an elaborate dinner.
One of the stories is about the original humans being an Androgene. I have not yet determined whether Plato simply made this up… or if he obtained from another culture.
There is a way to view Genesis 1:26-27 as God “splitting apart” an androgene, but the view never gained much attention in Jewish or Christian circles.
Weird that the link didn’t let you in; I’m not a subscriber, either. May try to find another link to replace that one.
I’d have to check whether the “Wright” mentioned alongside Walton is N.T. himself, or not, but this issue is not in a corner --it’s being actively assessed. Glad you found some of his stuff.
So did I. Personally, I think he suffers from too much of his own brand of categoricalism.
I reject an awful lot of his rationale for things while finding some merit in his linguistics. His method tries too hard to assign unintuitive meanings by plumbing a wide variety of ANE sources.
Jack Collins says “It is a mistake to identify the views of Genesis with the views of Israel…Moses sought shape the worldview of Israel, not to echo it.”
Tod Beall says "Now, to be sure, I think Walton makes some good points that do help us see an emphasis on function in the creation narrative. But then (as in his use of the ANE sources) he goes overboard, insisting that the text says virtually nothing about material creation. Even scholars who are somewhat sympathetic with Walton’s views say he has gone top far, here. [Footnote 44 cites Waltke, Gane, and Jack Collins, who says “Walton’s distinction between ‘function’ and ‘material’ may be useful for analytical purposes, but it hardly warrants the kind of separation that he advocates.” --see Collins’ review of The Lost World of Genesis One, section 4]
For further exploration, see “Reading Genesis 1-2; an Evangelical Conversation,” ed. J. Daryl Charles, Hendrickson Publishers, 2013. Walton has an entire chapter in there; chapter five, and Beall’s review, among others, is there, too.
All that said, Walton has made observations on linguistic grounds which are not affected by these issues, and his interpretation of the “forming of Eve” story is NOT considered outlandish or beyond the pale; quite the contrary --it is a proposal worthy of serious note. Too many evangelicals hear something a little different, and decide to throw the baby out with the bathwater, without bothering to reason things through.
Hope that helps; I am, by no means a “Walton devotee” --even though he has his share.