Book: The Lost World of Genesis One by John Walton

[Once4all]

Nov 6, 2009 16:55:06 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

If you REALLY want some thought-provoking stuff, may I recommend the following:

"The Lost World of Genesis One" by John H. Walton

Here is a link to a review: v02468.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/a-review-the-lost-world-of-genesis-one-by-john-h-walton/

Here is where it can be purchased:

www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosmology/dp/0830837043

Nov 6, 2009 20:51:11 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Ordered! Thanks. This actually is quite exciting. One of the best books I've read lately is G.K. Beale's The Temple and the Church's Mission in which he makes the case for the Garden of Eden being the first temple. Walton backing that idea up one step further to the creation of the cosmos is quite provocative. I can't wait to read it!

Bev

Regarding the book Book: The Lost World of Genesis One by John H. Walton

[Once4all]

FIRST IMPRESSION:

I started reading Walton's book. He writes well and explains things very well, with appropriate "ramp-up" to more complex discussions. I'm only in Prop 2, but I've already gone from thinking I've wasted my money to having that feeling in the back of my mind that he's on to something significant with his functional ontology proposition for the Genesis creation.

The "wasting my money" part was from a couple of things he wrote that made me think his agenda was to push evolution. I'm hoping that's not the case.

I found a problem, though, in Table 1 on page 42, where he lists supposedly every occurrence of the Hebrew bara in the Bible. He omitted Joshua 17:15 and 18, where it is translated "clear" or "cut" in the context of clearing a field by cutting down trees.

So I thought maybe he intended only to list the instances where it was translated as a form of "create." But no, he also omitted Amos 4:13, where it is translated "creates" in NASB and "createth"in KJV.

I just hope they weren't omitted because they do not support his conclusion.

FINAL IMPRESSION:

I finished reading John H. Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One last night. I'm of the opinion that my initial concern when I started the book was correct: the underlying agenda of the book is to push an acceptance of evolution, regardless of the author's own denial in the book, made more than once, that such was not his motive. I don't buy it.

Taking a functional view of the Creation narrative in Genesis 1 has merit, but I think the author is manipulating it a bit. Also, a functional view does not necessarily replace a material view. Both can be valid together, which the author admits in the FAQs in the back of the book.

Where as G.K. Beale in his book The Temple and the Church's Mission, treats the Garden of Eden as the first temple, Walton ignores the Garden and claims that the cosmos itself is the temple. I think even in Walton's functional view of the cosmos creation, the Garden is the actual temple, not the cosmos. I would compare the people of Israel whom God set aside for Himself with the cosmos, and the tabernacle where God's presence would be among them with the Garden of Eden. Adam being the first priest to cultivate/minister in the Garden/tabernacle.

His argument that science education (e.g., teaching evolution in the classroom) should be teleogically neutral (that what is taught should not imply claims to a purpose nor claims to a certainty of no purpose) is admirable on the surface. But that idea, coupled with a solely functional view of Genesis 1, results in zero percent chance of Creation or Intelligent Design being taught in school science classes, even as an option, and 100 percent chance of evolution being taught.

Walton is simply using this functional ontology to support from the Bible an unpopular belief, similar to how homosexuals might manipulate some scriptures to support acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle from the Bible.

Bev