I found another link… and posted it.
And included the key paragraph from Walton’s view.
There are lots of BioLogos folks who thinks his scenario is perfect for them. But even in BioLogos I thought it was pretty eccentric.
1 Like
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.
I like Walton, but he is an outlier among Biblical scholars. Most are not comfortable with his interpretation.
1 Like
Correction: most are not comfortable with his overall approach… you can’t speak of “his interpretation” monolithically and be accurate. Many find affinities with some of what he says, but not all (others are simply cheering fans, but not commonly among scholars).
Woah there big feller !!! Sometimes it is a person’s SPECIFIC interpretation that repels… but the general readers or listeners might like the overall approach. It can go either way, right?
If you can conceive of it … somebody will believe it.
I am happy to be challenged on a hypothetical, but Josh’s statement was simply mistakenly overbroad on this specific topic. Pretty sure he won’t even disagree with me, on this one.
Not the poster boy, but I do bring something to the table. Right now the only folks likely to be attracted to GA are those that take great liberties with the text- like I think our friend @Guy_Coe is doing with Eve . To bring in believers with a high view of scripture it is necessary to show that the text is actually describing a framework consistent with GA, not just with the Garden of Eden, but with the Flood and the Tower of Babel. The Christ-centered framework aligns with that part of GA exceedingly well. I’d say it allows Christians who have a high view of the text to consider GA.
You mean this statement?
@Guy_Coe, let’s look at this “by the numbers”. Most means from 99% down to 51%. I think it’s safe to say that less than 51% of Biblical scholars endorse Walton.
His views have only been around a few years, yes? If longer, please correct my assumption 
You aren’t surprised by this thought, are you? There can’t be that many people who think Adam was “imagining Eve being carved out of his body”!
Not interested in your hypotheticals.
Josh said “most are not comfortable with his interpretation.” That’s overly broad and potentially misleading, especially since his Adam and Eve proposals are relatively new.
It would be equally overbroad, and even disingenuous for me to say of GA, “most are not comfortable with this interpretation.”
What interpretation, exactly? Given that GA is also relatively new, hypothetically and statistically, it’s accurate enough. But, it’s hardly fair.
Don’t be too ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just because 1) it’s new 2) it’s not yet broadly understood enough for public reaction to have any bearing on its truthfulness 3) 'cause so-so-so said so 4) you don’t like it. None of those things have any bearing on the cogency of certain aspects of the proposal.
I don’t like it because its not what the text is saying. It’s just not.
Thanks Mark --I do highly value my liberty in Christ, but I don’t “take liberties with the text.” Having been an evangelical since high school has taught me to look beyond all attempts at shaming in this manner. I hold the Scriptures in just as high esteem as do you. You’ll have to find some other reason to dismiss me without trying to understand this view.
The text is saying something, we’re agreed --but you’re saying that it can’t be speaking of a vision. Obviously, you’re going to need to search that one deeper to match that certainty, because there’s a lot you haven’t considered.
I am not dismissing you. I am dismissing the idea that the creation of Eve is a dream sequence involving a woman who was born a natural way. I dismiss it because its not in the text. Nor am I dismissing it because “I don’t understand it”. I understand the claim, you explained it rather well, but its still not in the text.
It is irrelevant that other people in other passages on rare occasions had dreams or visions when they went into a deep sleep. The text does not say that Adam did so on that occasion. Rather, it explains what did happen- the woman was taken out of the man as the New Testament (1 Cor 11:7-9) confirms.
Further this is a better picture of Christ and the Church. Christ is not taking something outside of Himself and taking it over. He is getting back what was His all along. It spoils the picture of Christ and the Church if Eve is a natural-born woman from outside the garden.
Look, in other circumstances you have admonished me to look at surrounding scriptures to determine context and not how the same word is used in unrelated passages. And I agree that is a good rule. I am only asking you to follow your own interpretive rule here.
There is no reason to make this personal, other than I care about you not being in error for your sake.
Hey, @Guy_Coe, did you ever realize you are just a tad bit more confrontational than even I am?
You just said my last post was a hyothetical, which is technically not quite correct.
I stated a working definition of the term “most”… and it is solid. Anything between 51% and 99% is “most”.
Well, I should have made it 50%. Anything less than 50% can’t be most (while at 50%, it would still be correct, if there were 2 groups at 25%. [[ Under special circumstances, if it was only 40% or 30%, it could still be most, if there were no other groups larger than 40% or 30%. ]
And I think it is also factual to say that, being relatively new, it suffers the same condition as many other theological views.
There was nothing misleading about Joshua’s statement. For the present, it is correct. And I don’t think you will find anyone other than Walton who would gainsay Joshua’s opinion - - Frankly, I don’t even think Walton would gainsay it.
When Peter had his vision of all the animals wrapped up in a sheet, and was told to take and eat, are we to understand something physical was going on during the vision? What happens during a vision has a bearing on our understanding, without actually occurring.
Let’s go with that… Adam has a vision of Eve being carved out of his side of his body. Then he wakes up … checks his body … it’s all intact.
Okay… so where does Eve come from ? How DOES she arrive?
No. Because the text said it was a vision. Unlike in Genesis chapter two. Use the verses in Gen. chapter two in order to interpret those verses, as you have suggested I do elsewhere.
The text says God brought her to him. Maybe read it yourself?
I did. He TOOK the rib from Adam, and closed up the flesh, and with the rib He had TAKEN he formed Eve. THEN He brought the woman He had made to Adam. It is perfectly understandable. If I TAKE something from you and fashion it into something else and then I BROUGHT that new thing two you then the fact that I “brought” the new thing to you must be seen in the context of that new thing originally being taken from you.
“And the LORD caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam…”
Well, I’ve talked to several OT exegetes. I have yet to find a single one that agrees that Genesis is not about material origins in any way, and only about functional origins. Most will agree it is about functional origins in many ways, but this is not a good argument against it being silent on material origins.
I am convinced by their rebuttals. Walton has some really important insights about Genesis, but he is well outside the pack on denying all material origins in Genesis. It is among the first things said when his names come up.
I do I highly recommend reading Greg Beale, John Sailhamnmer, and Seth Postell (or @jongarvey’s summaries of them) for an interpretation that takes the best of Walton’s views, without loosing most people. Walton has made such an impact, of course, that everyone engages his work. That is good. That forces people to think about how much of Genesis is functional vs. material, but he is likely wrong in saying that 0% is material.
This is a different issue. GA is new on the scene. Most people have heard about in merely the last month. I do not even have a book out on it.
Walton’s books have been out for several years. People have a long time to catch up with his understanding of Genesis, and engage with it.
Walton has important insights. People have engaged his ideas deeply and disagree. He might be right. But I’d rather not hitch the Church’s view of science on his views of Genesis alone. Such a strategy is not a good plan. He is one voice at the table. An important voice, but not the only voice.