Dr Walton, I hope you have some incline of the benefit you are brining to people and their faith around the world. For me personally, you have brought concord where there was once discord. Resolution where there was once conflict. It's like any truth, it's so obvious when you see it, but I for one had to be shown. Thank you.
@@gabepearson6104 it is dumb. I’ve even lost some of my Christian friends over it. They accused me of always having to be right, when I all I did was give my reasons for not taking Genesis literally.
@@VierthalerStudios seriously? I literally agree with my conservative friend on everything but Genesis and Hell. I haven’t told my family this yet. But I agree with them on everything else, so I’ll see what happens.
They weres scared that you might be right. Some people's faith is in their eschatology/soteriology instead of in Jesus himself. Cause them to question their eschatology and it threatens their faith. Naturally, they are going to run (and I dont blame them). Give em time and pray for em.
Dr. Walton is a wonderful speaker and clarifies so much for me. At some point I wish he would tackle Judges and some of the rather horrifying stones we find in the Old Testament Genesis & Exodus.
I greatly respect author Dr. Walton’s brilliance and creativity, but his proposed solution to the question of Origins, in "Lost World" only leads to a more serious set of problems. Still, this controversial book still has merit worth considering. Here me out; To be blunt, Walton's philosophical approach is a rather dangerous way of looking at the world. The history of the church includes well-meaning scholars who introduce ideas that undermine Biblical authority. This is the case with the gifted Old Testament professor Dr. John Walton. I was required to read this book for my Master's degree class. While his approach was indeed 'innovative' many of my fellow students were upset over his conclusions and complained to the Professor of the class that it seemed Walton was casting doubt on the infallible authority of Scripture. He introduced some bizarre terms like 'function over form' meaning creation was not so material as it was functional, which made absolutely no sense to most of the class members! For example, Dr. Walton asserted that ancient Near Eastern people focused more on how things functioned than their material nature. This meant that when Genesis 1 describes God forming land, sea, and animals over a series of days, it is not referring to material substances like dirt, water, and flesh appearing at specific times and places. Rather, it reveals the function of these things within the ‘cosmic temple’ of the world. This unusual construction enabled Dr. Walton to conclude that Genesis 1 “was never intended to be an account of material origins. Rather it was intended as an account of functional origins…. If the Bible does not offer an account of material origins, we are free to consider contemporary origins on their own merits, as long as God is seen as ultimately responsible.” Since then, Dr. Walton has continued to apply his ‘lost world’ methodology to other parts of the Bible. In additional books, he redefines the nature of Biblical revelation, that Adam and Eve were ‘archetypes’ instead of the first biological humans, and that the Genesis flood was an unidentifiable local event hyperbolically described as a global catastrophe. Dr. Walton reminds me of the third-century theologian Origen to whom he sometimes refers. Origen had one of the most creative theological minds in the early church. Nevertheless, his creativity led him to advocate views that were rejected as dangerous to Christian theology. These statements reveal a modern form of Gnosticism. By ‘Gnosticism,’ I’m referring to a philosophical view of the world that thinks special, hidden knowledge is necessary to understand what is true. For Dr. Walton, this knowledge is found in his ‘lost world’; it can only be recovered by scholars like himself. Such knowledge provides true insight into reality. According to Dr. Walton, Biblical truth is not dependent on real history. Instead, “truth is found in the narrator’s interpretation, which we accept by faith, regardless of whether or not we can reconstruct the events. His interests are not concentrated on human history but on God’s plans and purposes.” This is the goal of gnostic thinking: the separation of human history from God’s plans and purposes. Gnosticism consistently seeks to substitute Biblical history with its own history. In the early church, it looked to the religions of Persia and the philosophies of Greece to provide a spiritual history of the world. In the modern era, it looks to the religion of evolutionary science and the philosophies of the Enlightenment to create a materialist history of the universe. At its heart, however, Gnosticism is at war with God’s real actions in history. It is a heresy that stands in opposition to the Biblical view that teaches a direct connection between God’s original acts of creation and His absolute control of every event in time. Dr. Walton’s gnostic interpretation of the Bible inserts a gulf between events and the interpretation of those events. He must do this, however, to replace Biblical revelation concerning origins with the contemporary evolutionary history. Authority is therefore taken out of the event and placed only in the interpretation. If events such as the creation of animals or the flood actually happened as the narratives describe them, an evolutionary history of the world is impossible. Dr. Walton may deny this sort of historical substitution is his intent, but the structure of his books, the repetitive comments within them, and his professional associations tell a different story. He has published an extensive corpus of material that provides clear insight into his views. The result of accepting Dr. Walton’s gnostic worldview is the slow destruction of the historical foundation upon which Christianity is based. Although he believes he is providing a solution to the origins debate by disconnecting the Biblical text from real history, he is simply falling into the errors that have beset Gnosticism since the first century. Yet Dr. Walton is a professor at one of the most respected evangelical colleges in the world. Such a position gives him remarkable credibility to spread his “new analysis of the meaning of Genesis” to Christians everywhere. As a result, some will be swayed by his methods to adopt his modern form of Gnosticism. The solution is only found in the Christian worldview. To accept it, however, means the rejection of the neo-Kantian view of reality. It also means the rejection of Dr. Walton’s division of physical and metaphysical as he defines them. That is concerning indeed. I suspect something similar is going on with Dr. Walton. He clearly is a brilliant man and an exceptionally creative thinker. He has developed a unique interpretive structure to solve a particular problem, one he brings up over and over again in his books: the “perceived origins conflict between the Bible and science….” The goal of his work seems to be to solve that difficult problem. The problem becomes a tsunami in the making when one goes to metaphysical philosophy with a non-Christian worldview like that of Kant, that John Walton seems to be drifting to as we speak. "The Lost World" is a book one should read with an open Bible at hand. We live in a day and time when even the most celebrated intellectuals, especially among the academy, are not neccesarily the most beneficial for our faith and walk with God. Discernment has never been needed more than today. Make doubly sure you ask for it when you read "Lost World." You may discover, as many before you, that the only thing which is truly "lost" is the desperate attempt to spin biblical theology of the creation accounts in a way that depresses rather than impresses the average reader.
Good lecture. However, at 43:00 he mentioned a possibility of everything having a common ancestor and then saying the bible doesn't say anything about this. But doesn't it? God made things "after their own kind". Genesis 1. The ancients understood one kind of animal produced itself. This was self evident. If he were to say it's not about biology, doesn't it still reveal something about the Creator and creation relationship?
I definitely see your point! But I think the answer could be that we can't definitively say that it's talking about biology, and we can't necessarily rule it out.
This is an excellent lecture. Here's an excursus on one of your insights: Interestingly, the determination that humans were created mortal virtually requires the conclusion that a place of eternal (everlasting/infinite) punishment does not exist apart from metaphor. Assuming "eternal" means "forever": If humans are created mortal, it requires a miracle (resurrection) for us to inhabit eternal life; so too it requires a miracle for those who might inhabit eternal torment. It seems it would be an odd claim to say God instantiates a number of grand miracles ***in order that*** he might then torment the recipients of these miracles for eternity.
I agree, Sonnyboy. It never made sense to me that God would create billions of humans in His own image KNOWING that the vast majority would reject Him and therefore be subject to conscious torment FOREVER AND EVER. From a theodicy perspective this idea of eternal conscious torment (a doctrine out of the Middle Ages) contradicts character of God as He portrays Himself in the totality of Scripture. I no longer buy that doctrine.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME But he is not exegeting. He is using eisegesis, adding his thoughts on ANE culture into the text to actually change the meaning of the text. That is not good exegesis. That is not faithful interpretation.
Genesis 2 & 3 after listening to John it seems more likely that God is establishing formal rules with man/woman. I’d like more convincing on ‘priests’ role.
I have to admit that it all sound very knowledgeable and all, however to have to go through all of that mind boggling culture-unwinding and thorough analysis before one can allow himself to say that now he can sort of really understand the real meaning of God’s words goes against the simple way in which I believe God is trying to talk to the person readings it or listening to it being read.
Perhaps God speaks to each unique Or as Jesus said to Peter when he questioned another man’s plight… ”Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”“ aka it’s not your business, you follow me
asymptotic singularity : Adam and Eve were symbolic figures of the kings and queens of Israel. You should watch the documentary "The Real Garden of Eden" by Dr. Francesco Stavrakopulou on DailyMotion.com. This will answer a lot of your questions.
First, Adam and Eve was together when the beast of the field deceived Eve, Here's proof: Genesis 3: 5-6 for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and ate, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he ate. If you notice the beast said: “and ye shall be as gods,” because more then one person was their. Genesis 3: 6 and gave also unto her husband with her; and he ate. (See Adam was with her) Mentally Eve was over Adam, I know this is hard to believe Here's proof: Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Now let’ define the word sorrow in Genesis 3:16 , in more modern terms. My Father greatly multiply Eve "grief, regret, trouble, care, pain, anxiety," now she’s very emotional. Now Eve desire was for my Father, Now my Father made her desire for Adam, now mentally Adam is over Eve. If Eve was not Mentally over Adam, How else could she get Adam to eat the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden. Now check this scripture out: 1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression. Now check this scripture out: Genesis 5:2 Male and female created He them, and blessed them and called their name Adam in the day when they were created.
@@ionutdinchitila1663: The writers wrote about them as if they were real, but if you study the symbolism of each narrative you will see they never existed. Jesus speaks about these people in the same way the prophets wrote about them, as if they were real. But just because Jesus spoke about them does not mean he actually thought they existed. None of the patriarchs existed, and there was no Exodus.
@@cryptogee891 Eve was supposedly deceived but she still made a huge transgression by not trusting in God(and not listening to her husband in regards to what God said as Adam must have told her by himself, see chapter 2 where it seems God never told Eve the instructions directly) above everything. Adam wasn't deceived, but he disobeyed anyway which makes his transgression even worse tbh. He did it because he wanted to be like God and he too, in the the end, did not have enough trust in God to not sin, let alone stop Eve from sining. But yea, Adam seems to be there when it happened. Again, this is why they are both equally terrible.
When discussing "half of Adam", could this relate scientifically to XY and XX chromosomes, since they didn't have an understanding of this at that time? Man is XY and Woman is XX, so half of the male is X and woman becomes XX.
I like the observation! I see “Coincidences” like that in science and nature all the time relating to the Word. Jesus said “Look at the birds of the air” and when I do He speaks through them. I know many so surely say these connections are just unrelated coincidences, not faithful exegesis but what they think is not my business. He is before all things and in Him all things exist.
The original Hebrew language in Genesis chapter 1 does NOT ONLY speak of functional origins. No translation of the original Hebrew language gives that idea at all. It speaks of both making/creating (material creation) as well as the function of what He made. Sorry, John Walton is putting priority on his view of the ANE culture and reads that into the text, which is called eisegesis. That is not faithful bible interpretation. Faithful interpretation requires using exegesis. Also, Genesis chapter one is actually correcting the ideas of the ANE culture, not following it.
"Because of sin we are subject to death!", I don't get that. The natural world (in a modern sense) follows an evolutionary path of eat or be eaten and that involves suffering and death as creatures compete. Even without Adam or Eve death existed. If you insist these 2 could have lived forever you are stretching credibility a bit too far. Everything about our physiology, like all our fellow creatures, suggests we humans inherit a limited life span. Are all these other creatures subject to death because they have sinned too? I think the theologies of sin and redemption need a gross makeover. We are an evolving adapting species who have always lived in a charging world. As the world always changes there has never been a so-called perfect state... and so we have never been perfect!
My initial reaction to this is the attack on scripture's authority and God's ability to communicate to us His truth. No literal claim of scripture contradicts anything that true science has discovered. This makes God unable to communicate to us who are "sophisticated". Every time you introduced a new twisting of the literal understanding you laughed to take the edge off. Reminds me of the sitcom "Friends". They laughed their way into one of most immoral, God dishonoring spirits ever until that time. Hey if it's funny it can't be bad, right?
I do believe there are metaphysical understanding and events in this account, and I do not deny the material reality of the garden of eden. Paul mirrors this in his writing in Romans. One man's disobedience vs Christ's obedience. Also when people tend to turn the garden event into pure metaphor they stumble when proceeding from there to the next chapters.
God chose to reveal himself to the ancient Israelites. Because God chose to reveal himself to the ancient Israelites, it is their culture, language, and understand of the world that is reflected in scripture. To insist that scripture conform to our culture, language, and understanding of the world is to deny God's election of, and revelation to, the ancient Israelites.
I don't think so because John's contention is that there is no science as such in the Bible, its written in the terms of the understandings of the original writer.
Adam was certainty not 1st man. Scripture means what it says & says what it means. So when Jesus said from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the beginning made them male & female’.. Gen1:1 Mk10:6 Matt19:4 Mk13:19 Heb1:10 This act which Jesus referred was: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male & female created he them & God blessed them’, & God said to them, “Be fruitful, & multiply, & Replenish the EARTH, & subdue it: & have dominion over the fish of the sea, & over the fowl of the air, & over every living thing that moves upon the EARTH & God said, Behold, I have given you EVERY. ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive ) herb yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, & EVERY tree, ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive) In the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.” Gen1:27-29 But when God made Adam & placed him in GARDEN God was very specific ; And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. & the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. & out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, & every fowl of the air; & brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: & whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Gen2:16-19 Adam was specifically told v2:17 not eat of Tree knowledge of good & evil. Gen1 & Gen2 are separate accounts. Time betwixt these 2events remains unspecified.. A GREAT error comes when one equates Gen1&Gen2 for they are very different events Jesus was clear, For He did not say from time of Garden He made Adam & Eve. But rather Jesus said: from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the "beginning" made them male & female Not Adam & Eve, not from dust, not from the time of garden. Jesus meant what was said & said what he meant, Adam, Eve,& garden were not in the creation... scripture means what is said and says what it means Man in Gen1 was made From nothing Ex-Nehlio... Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Yet Adam in Gen2 was formed from dust of ground & Eve was formed from Adam's rib... thus Adam & Eve of Gen2 are not made Ex-nehlio, from nothing, as were the man & woman in the beginning. Man & Woman of Gen1 were given dominion over all earth that was watered by a mist neither did Gen1 have dietary restriction as given Adam & Eve in a garden watered by 4 rivers. Gen1 & Gen2 are completely different events, scripture does not err. Jesus drew a line into the sands of time at Luke 16:16 The law & the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, & every man presseth into it. There were 4kYrs of sin prior to John. "Behold the Lamb slain from foundation of this world." When was this present sinful world founded? but in the day of ADAM'S sin. For then Adam&Eve were clothed in skin of slain lamb & a redeemer promised. there remain 3k years from Jesus death.. John 2:19 Jesus answered & said unto them, Destroy this temple, & in three days I will raise it up. The final event is specified. Rev21:22-23 & I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty & the Lamb are the temple of it. & the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, & the Lamb is the light thereof. Time between Gen1&Gen2 is Unspecified but finite. To equate Gen1&Gen2 as same events leads to great confusion There are many many facts to prove earth age is in excess of 6000Y BP, wiki article earth age completly refutes young earth psudoscience... and wiki cites just the most blatant proofs, there are others
Reading the Bible in it's ancient context is fine, but John Walton goes way too far. He claims that they didn't care about material creation. He claims that but doesn't prove it. I don't believe that for a second. And if they didn't care about the material creation, why is Genesis chapter one and two talking about it. It clearly is talking about material creation, no matter how much John Walton says it doesn't. John Walton is terribly wrong on this.
He is referring to the original Hebrew language that only speaks of functional origins not material. It is not to say material origins do not exist but that their language doesn’t account for it in the creation story, it is not referencing the material, so one can conclude it was not their way of thinking.
@@lammie2282 The original Hebrew language in Genesis chapter 1 does NOT ONLY speak of functional origins. No translation of the original Hebrew language gives that idea at all. It speaks of both making/creating (material creation) as well as the function of what He made. Sorry, John Walton is putting priority on his view of the ANE culture and reads that into the text, which is called eisegesis. That is not faithful bible interpretation. Faithful interpretation requires using exegesis. Genesis chapter one is actually correcting the ideas of the ANE culture, not following it.
this guy is doing some serious mental gymnastics. How does a person claiming to know the old Testament say this garbage? Makes me wonder how many Jews have watched this and had to rip their clothing
John Walton does not believe in Gods word he believes in his own understanding it makes him a fool its not me calling him a fool but the word is cheers
Steve Seiler sir, are you an Old Testament Scholar who have invested your life Studying the hebrew text and Ancient Near East background? please. Don't force your beliefs into the text. God's word is so much richer and powerful than what you think. God bless you.
R. Joël Guzman-Quispe With all due respect though, Dr.. Walter Kaiser, who is one of the world's leading Old Testament and Hebrew scholars, is of a different opinion than John Walton...
R. Joël Guzman-Quispe While John Walton has many good points in that the Jewish culture and its context needs to be considered, I would argue that reading too much out of the text is detrimental as well... Moreover according to John Walton in Genesis 1, God merely parrots human error in cosmology,.. do forgive me if I have more confidence in God and his word
I agree. And I've seen the argument from education, but neither has strictly education turned out anything besides rank atheism in our colleges and universities.
And how do you not believe in your own understanding of God's word when you read it without considering the ANE authors' intent in conveying God's word? As Dr. Walton has pointed out elsewhere, to read the scriptures without thinking about the ANE template of scripture is to necessarily read it with our own cultural template, which does distort the word of God as given through those He vested with that authority. Dr. Walton's ending admonition in this lecture is perfect for someone like you, who would claim that because you do not agree with Dr. Walton's exegetical approach to scripture, then he therefore must not believe in God's word. A little humility would be good for you.
Boy does he miss the mark terribly, he opens by saying "I'm just trying to see what the Bible says" then proceeds to give nothing but ill formed opinions. I was soooooooo disappointed that Tim Mackie had him on his podcast recently. This man is a heretic.
@@gabepearson6104 Reading the Bible in it's ancient context is fine, but John Walton goes way too far. He claims that they didn't care about material creation. He claims that but doesn't prove it. I don't believe that for a second. And if they didn't care about the material creation, why is Genesis chapter one and two talking about it. It clearly is talking about material creation, no matter how much John Walton says it doesn't. John Walton is terribly wrong on this.
Adam was certainty not 1st man. Scripture means what it says & says what it means. So when Jesus said from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the beginning made them male & female’.. Gen1:1 Mk10:6 Matt19:4 Mk13:19 Heb1:10 This act which Jesus referred was: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male & female created he them & God blessed them’, & God said to them, “Be fruitful, & multiply, & Replenish the EARTH, & subdue it: & have dominion over the fish of the sea, & over the fowl of the air, & over every living thing that moves upon the EARTH & God said, Behold, I have given you EVERY. ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive ) herb yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, & EVERY tree, ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive) In the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.” Gen1:27-29 But when God made Adam & placed him in GARDEN God was very specific ; And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. & the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. & out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, & every fowl of the air; & brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: & whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Gen2:16-19 Adam was specifically told v2:17 not eat of Tree knowledge of good & evil. Gen1 & Gen2 are separate accounts. Time betwixt these 2events remains unspecified.. A GREAT error comes when one equates Gen1&Gen2 for they are very different events Jesus was clear, For He did not say from time of Garden He made Adam & Eve. But rather Jesus said: from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the "beginning" made them male & female Not Adam & Eve, not from dust, not from the time of garden. Jesus meant what was said & said what he meant, Adam, Eve,& garden were not in the creation... scripture means what is said and says what it means Man in Gen1 was made From nothing Ex-Nehlio... Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Yet Adam in Gen2 was formed from dust of ground & Eve was formed from Adam's rib... thus Adam & Eve of Gen2 are not made Ex-nehlio, from nothing, as were the man & woman in the beginning. Man & Woman of Gen1 were given dominion over all earth that was watered by a mist neither did Gen1 have dietary restriction as given Adam & Eve in a garden watered by 4 rivers. Gen1 & Gen2 are completely different events, scripture does not err. Jesus drew a line into the sands of time at Luke 16:16 The law & the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, & every man presseth into it. There were 4kYrs of sin prior to John. "Behold the Lamb slain from foundation of this world." When was this present sinful world founded? but in the day of ADAM'S sin. For then Adam&Eve were clothed in skin of slain lamb & a redeemer promised. there remain 3k years from Jesus death.. John 2:19 Jesus answered & said unto them, Destroy this temple, & in three days I will raise it up. The final event is specified. Rev21:22-23 & I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty & the Lamb are the temple of it. & the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, & the Lamb is the light thereof. Time between Gen1&Gen2 is Unspecified but finite. To equate Gen1&Gen2 as same events leads to great confusion There are many many facts to prove earth age is in excess of 6000Y BP, wiki article earth age completly refutes young earth psudoscience... and wiki cites just the most blatant proofs, there are others
Dr Walton, I hope you have some incline of the benefit you are brining to people and their faith around the world. For me personally, you have brought concord where there was once discord. Resolution where there was once conflict. It's like any truth, it's so obvious when you see it, but I for one had to be shown. Thank you.
This was an outstanding lecture. Thanks for sharing. Walton's book ANE Thought and the Old Testament was one of my favorites in seminary.
Agreed!
Really? I found ANE Thought barely literate. He clearly had a very poor understanding of the ANE texts.
I had one of my Christian friends unfriend me because I don’t take the dust part literally.
Bruh that’s dumb. Just because a person reads Genesis one differently doesn’t mean you should be unfriended.
@@gabepearson6104 it is dumb. I’ve even lost some of my Christian friends over it. They accused me of always having to be right, when I all I did was give my reasons for not taking Genesis literally.
@@VierthalerStudios seriously? I literally agree with my conservative friend on everything but Genesis and Hell. I haven’t told my family this yet. But I agree with them on everything else, so I’ll see what happens.
Paul says we are taken from dust and return to dust. Walton cherry picks verses and then attempts to make them fit his unique worldview.
They weres scared that you might be right. Some people's faith is in their eschatology/soteriology instead of in Jesus himself. Cause them to question their eschatology and it threatens their faith. Naturally, they are going to run (and I dont blame them). Give em time and pray for em.
Dr. Walton is a wonderful speaker and clarifies so much for me. At some point I wish he would tackle Judges and some of the rather horrifying stones we find in the Old Testament Genesis & Exodus.
Read: The Destruction of the Canaanites: God, Genocide, and Biblical Interpretation and Divine Violence and the Character of God
Thank you for sharing! Very informative! Keep posting, we need more videos like this one...
Great lecture. Thank you for sharing. I was wondering though what happened at the audio staring at 9:23. White noise.
Sounds like a low battery in his radio mic
Sound of the serpent, perhaps? 🐍
Too bad the sound is terrible 😪
I greatly respect author Dr. Walton’s brilliance and creativity, but his proposed solution to the question of Origins, in "Lost World" only leads to a more serious set of problems. Still, this controversial book still has merit worth considering. Here me out;
To be blunt, Walton's philosophical approach is a rather dangerous way of looking at the world. The history of the church includes well-meaning scholars who introduce ideas that undermine Biblical authority. This is the case with the gifted Old Testament professor Dr. John Walton. I was required to read this book for my Master's degree class. While his approach was indeed 'innovative' many of my fellow students were upset over his conclusions and complained to the Professor of the class that it seemed Walton was casting doubt on the infallible authority of Scripture. He introduced some bizarre terms like 'function over form' meaning creation was not so material as it was functional, which made absolutely no sense to most of the class members!
For example, Dr. Walton asserted that ancient Near Eastern people focused more on how things functioned than their material nature. This meant that when Genesis 1 describes God forming land, sea, and animals over a series of days, it is not referring to material substances like dirt, water, and flesh appearing at specific times and places. Rather, it reveals the function of these things within the ‘cosmic temple’ of the world.
This unusual construction enabled Dr. Walton to conclude that Genesis 1 “was never intended to be an account of material origins. Rather it was intended as an account of functional origins…. If the Bible does not offer an account of material origins, we are free to consider contemporary origins on their own merits, as long as God is seen as ultimately responsible.”
Since then, Dr. Walton has continued to apply his ‘lost world’ methodology to other parts of the Bible. In additional books, he redefines the nature of Biblical revelation, that Adam and Eve were ‘archetypes’ instead of the first biological humans, and that the Genesis flood was an unidentifiable local event hyperbolically described as a global catastrophe.
Dr. Walton reminds me of the third-century theologian Origen to whom he sometimes refers. Origen had one of the most creative theological minds in the early church. Nevertheless, his creativity led him to advocate views that were rejected as dangerous to Christian theology.
These statements reveal a modern form of Gnosticism.
By ‘Gnosticism,’ I’m referring to a philosophical view of the world that thinks special, hidden knowledge is necessary to understand what is true. For Dr. Walton, this knowledge is found in his ‘lost world’; it can only be recovered by scholars like himself. Such knowledge provides true insight into reality.
According to Dr. Walton, Biblical truth is not dependent on real history. Instead, “truth is found in the narrator’s interpretation, which we accept by faith, regardless of whether or not we can reconstruct the events. His interests are not concentrated on human history but on God’s plans and purposes.”
This is the goal of gnostic thinking: the separation of human history from God’s plans and purposes.
Gnosticism consistently seeks to substitute Biblical history with its own history. In the early church, it looked to the religions of Persia and the philosophies of Greece to provide a spiritual history of the world. In the modern era, it looks to the religion of evolutionary science and the philosophies of the Enlightenment to create a materialist history of the universe.
At its heart, however, Gnosticism is at war with God’s real actions in history.
It is a heresy that stands in opposition to the Biblical view that teaches a direct connection between God’s original acts of creation and His absolute control of every event in time.
Dr. Walton’s gnostic interpretation of the Bible inserts a gulf between events and the interpretation of those events. He must do this, however, to replace Biblical revelation concerning origins with the contemporary evolutionary history. Authority is therefore taken out of the event and placed only in the interpretation. If events such as the creation of animals or the flood actually happened as the narratives describe them, an evolutionary history of the world is impossible. Dr. Walton may deny this sort of historical substitution is his intent, but the structure of his books, the repetitive comments within them, and his professional associations tell a different story. He has published an extensive corpus of material that provides clear insight into his views.
The result of accepting Dr. Walton’s gnostic worldview is the slow destruction of the historical foundation upon which Christianity is based. Although he believes he is providing a solution to the origins debate by disconnecting the Biblical text from real history, he is simply falling into the errors that have beset Gnosticism since the first century.
Yet Dr. Walton is a professor at one of the most respected evangelical colleges in the world. Such a position gives him remarkable credibility to spread his “new analysis of the meaning of Genesis” to Christians everywhere. As a result, some will be swayed by his methods to adopt his modern form of Gnosticism. The solution is only found in the Christian worldview. To accept it, however, means the rejection of the neo-Kantian view of reality. It also means the rejection of Dr. Walton’s division of physical and metaphysical as he defines them.
That is concerning indeed.
I suspect something similar is going on with Dr. Walton. He clearly is a brilliant man and an exceptionally creative thinker. He has developed a unique interpretive structure to solve a particular problem, one he brings up over and over again in his books: the “perceived origins conflict between the Bible and science….”
The goal of his work seems to be to solve that difficult problem. The problem becomes a tsunami in the making when one goes to metaphysical philosophy with a non-Christian worldview like that of Kant, that John Walton seems to be drifting to as we speak.
"The Lost World" is a book one should read with an open Bible at hand. We live in a day and time when even the most celebrated intellectuals, especially among the academy, are not neccesarily the most beneficial for our faith and walk with God. Discernment has never been needed more than today. Make doubly sure you ask for it when you read "Lost World." You may discover, as many before you, that the only thing which is truly "lost" is the desperate attempt to spin biblical theology of the creation accounts in a way that depresses rather than impresses the average reader.
Good lecture. However, at 43:00 he mentioned a possibility of everything having a common ancestor and then saying the bible doesn't say anything about this. But doesn't it? God made things "after their own kind". Genesis 1. The ancients understood one kind of animal produced itself. This was self evident. If he were to say it's not about biology, doesn't it still reveal something about the Creator and creation relationship?
I definitely see your point! But I think the answer could be that we can't definitively say that it's talking about biology, and we can't necessarily rule it out.
Excellent lecture.
This is an excellent lecture.
Here's an excursus on one of your insights:
Interestingly, the determination that humans were created mortal virtually requires the conclusion that a place of eternal (everlasting/infinite) punishment does not exist apart from metaphor.
Assuming "eternal" means "forever": If humans are created mortal, it requires a miracle (resurrection) for us to inhabit eternal life; so too it requires a miracle for those who might inhabit eternal torment. It seems it would be an odd claim to say God instantiates a number of grand miracles ***in order that*** he might then torment the recipients of these miracles for eternity.
I agree, Sonnyboy.
It never made sense to me that God would create billions of humans in His own image KNOWING that the vast majority would reject Him and therefore be subject to conscious torment FOREVER AND EVER. From a theodicy perspective this idea of eternal conscious torment (a doctrine out of the Middle Ages) contradicts character of God as He portrays Himself in the totality of Scripture. I no longer buy that doctrine.
well done, much fruit flows from careful exegesis
@@Jamie-Russell-CME But he is not exegeting. He is using eisegesis, adding his thoughts on ANE culture into the text to actually change the meaning of the text. That is not good exegesis. That is not faithful interpretation.
Genesis 2 & 3 after listening to John it seems more likely that God is establishing formal rules with man/woman. I’d like more convincing on ‘priests’ role.
I have to admit that it all sound very knowledgeable and all, however to have to go through all of that mind boggling culture-unwinding and thorough analysis before one can allow himself to say that now he can sort of really understand the real meaning of God’s words goes against the simple way in which I believe God is trying to talk to the person readings it or listening to it being read.
Perhaps God speaks to each unique Or as Jesus said to Peter when he questioned another man’s plight… ”Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”“ aka it’s not your business, you follow me
were Adam and Eve together when The Serpant tempted Eve? Was Adam present when Eve took the first bite?
asymptotic singularity : Adam and Eve were symbolic figures of the kings and queens of Israel. You should watch the documentary "The Real Garden of Eden" by Dr. Francesco Stavrakopulou on DailyMotion.com. This will answer a lot of your questions.
First, Adam and Eve was together when the beast of the field deceived Eve, Here's proof:
Genesis 3: 5-6
for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and ate, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he ate.
If you notice the beast said: “and ye shall be as gods,” because more then one person was their.
Genesis 3: 6 and gave also unto her husband with her; and he ate. (See Adam was with her)
Mentally Eve was over Adam, I know this is hard to believe Here's proof:
Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
Now let’ define the word sorrow in Genesis 3:16 , in more modern terms.
My Father greatly multiply Eve "grief, regret, trouble, care, pain, anxiety,"
now she’s very emotional.
Now Eve desire was for my Father, Now my Father made her desire for Adam, now mentally Adam is over Eve. If Eve was not Mentally over Adam, How else could she get Adam to eat the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden.
Now check this scripture out:
1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression.
Now check this scripture out:
Genesis 5:2
Male and female created He them, and blessed them and called their name Adam in the day when they were created.
@@timw4383 No, Jesus describes Abel, their child, and how can they be symbolic when Jesus is their descendent (Luke 3)?
@@ionutdinchitila1663:
The writers wrote about them as if they were real, but if you study the symbolism of each narrative you will see they never existed.
Jesus speaks about these people in the same way the prophets wrote about them, as if they were real.
But just because Jesus spoke about them does not mean he actually thought they existed.
None of the patriarchs existed, and there was no Exodus.
@@cryptogee891 Eve was supposedly deceived but she still made a huge transgression by not trusting in God(and not listening to her husband in regards to what God said as Adam must have told her by himself, see chapter 2 where it seems God never told Eve the instructions directly) above everything.
Adam wasn't deceived, but he disobeyed anyway which makes his transgression even worse tbh. He did it because he wanted to be like God and he too, in the the end, did not have enough trust in God to not sin, let alone stop Eve from sining.
But yea, Adam seems to be there when it happened. Again, this is why they are both equally terrible.
Is this what passes for investigation The bible has authority so it can't be wrong investigation over.
The bible MUST BE RIGHTLY DIVIDED! ALL SCRIPTURE has 4 applications! 2 Timothy 2:15
2 Timothy 3:16
When discussing "half of Adam", could this relate scientifically to XY and XX chromosomes, since they didn't have an understanding of this at that time? Man is XY and Woman is XX, so half of the male is X and woman becomes XX.
Lincoln Nail Like Walton said, Genesis doesn't offer scientific revelation. I thought that was made clear...
Nay it couldn't. There's a column by D. Venema on BioLogos on this topic.
We could interpret it that way if it makes us feel better, but the text isn't saying that
I like the observation! I see “Coincidences” like that in science and nature all the time relating to the Word. Jesus said “Look at the birds of the air” and when I do He speaks through them. I know many so surely say these connections are just unrelated coincidences, not faithful exegesis but what they think is not my business.
He is before all things and in Him all things exist.
The original Hebrew language in Genesis chapter 1 does NOT ONLY speak of functional origins. No translation of the original Hebrew language gives that idea at all. It speaks of both making/creating (material creation) as well as the function of what He made. Sorry, John Walton is putting priority on his view of the ANE culture and reads that into the text, which is called eisegesis. That is not faithful bible interpretation. Faithful interpretation requires using exegesis. Also, Genesis chapter one is actually correcting the ideas of the ANE culture, not following it.
"Because of sin we are subject to death!", I don't get that. The natural world (in a modern sense) follows an evolutionary path of eat or be eaten and that involves suffering and death as creatures compete. Even without Adam or Eve death existed. If you insist these 2 could have lived forever you are stretching credibility a bit too far. Everything about our physiology, like all our fellow creatures, suggests we humans inherit a limited life span. Are all these other creatures subject to death because they have sinned too?
I think the theologies of sin and redemption need a gross makeover. We are an evolving adapting species who have always lived in a charging world. As the world always changes there has never been a so-called perfect state... and so we have never been perfect!
My initial reaction to this is the attack on scripture's authority and God's ability to communicate to us His truth. No literal claim of scripture contradicts anything that true science has discovered. This makes God unable to communicate to us who are "sophisticated". Every time you introduced a new twisting of the literal understanding you laughed to take the edge off. Reminds me of the sitcom "Friends". They laughed their way into one of most immoral, God dishonoring spirits ever until that time. Hey if it's funny it can't be bad, right?
I do believe there are metaphysical understanding and events in this account, and I do not deny the material reality of the garden of eden.
Paul mirrors this in his writing in Romans. One man's disobedience vs Christ's obedience.
Also when people tend to turn the garden event into pure metaphor they stumble when proceeding from there to the next chapters.
God chose to reveal himself to the ancient Israelites. Because God chose to reveal himself to the ancient Israelites, it is their culture, language, and understand of the world that is reflected in scripture. To insist that scripture conform to our culture, language, and understanding of the world is to deny God's election of, and revelation to, the ancient Israelites.
God had no problem communicating with humans in the Old Testament!!!!
doesn't the side mean chromosome? XX - Female, XY - Male
I don't think so because John's contention is that there is no science as such in the Bible, its written in the terms of the understandings of the original writer.
Adam was certainty not 1st man. Scripture means what it says & says what it means. So when Jesus said from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the beginning made them male & female’.. Gen1:1 Mk10:6 Matt19:4 Mk13:19 Heb1:10
This act which Jesus referred was:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male & female created he them & God blessed them’, & God said to them, “Be fruitful, & multiply, & Replenish the EARTH, & subdue it: & have dominion over the fish of the sea, & over the fowl of the air, & over every living thing that moves upon the EARTH & God said, Behold, I have given you
EVERY. ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive )
herb yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, &
EVERY tree, ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive)
In the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.” Gen1:27-29
But when God made Adam & placed him in GARDEN God was very specific ;
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. & the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. & out of the ground
the Lord God formed every beast of the field, & every fowl of the air; & brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: & whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Gen2:16-19
Adam was specifically told v2:17 not eat of Tree knowledge of good & evil.
Gen1 & Gen2 are separate accounts. Time betwixt these 2events remains unspecified.. A GREAT error comes when one equates Gen1&Gen2 for they are very different events
Jesus was clear, For He did not say from time of Garden He made Adam & Eve. But rather Jesus said:
from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the "beginning" made them male & female
Not Adam & Eve, not from dust, not from the time of garden. Jesus meant what was said & said what he meant, Adam, Eve,& garden were not in the creation... scripture means what is said and says what it means
Man in Gen1 was made From nothing Ex-Nehlio... Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Yet Adam in Gen2 was formed from dust of ground & Eve was formed from Adam's rib... thus Adam & Eve of Gen2 are not made Ex-nehlio, from nothing, as were the man & woman in the beginning. Man & Woman of Gen1 were given dominion over all earth that was watered by a mist neither did Gen1 have dietary restriction as given Adam & Eve in a garden watered by 4 rivers. Gen1 & Gen2 are completely different events, scripture does not err.
Jesus drew a line into the sands of time at Luke 16:16 The law & the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, & every man presseth into it.
There were 4kYrs of sin prior to John. "Behold the Lamb slain from foundation of this world." When was this present sinful world founded? but in the day of ADAM'S sin. For then Adam&Eve were clothed in skin of slain lamb & a redeemer promised. there remain 3k years from Jesus death.. John 2:19 Jesus answered & said unto them, Destroy this temple, & in three days I will raise it up. The final event is specified. Rev21:22-23 & I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty & the Lamb are the temple of it. & the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, & the Lamb is the light thereof.
Time between Gen1&Gen2 is Unspecified but finite. To equate Gen1&Gen2 as same events leads to great confusion There are many many facts to prove earth age is in excess of 6000Y BP, wiki article earth age completly refutes young earth psudoscience... and wiki cites just the most blatant proofs, there are others
Adam (human) was made from mud (Humus - living soil) NOT "dust".
Eve, the mother of all livingits not either or.
jamie Russell in Hebrew it's not "all living" but "the mother of life" which is a reference to Jesus the Messiah.
@@sethcanoy7727, I agree 100 % the problem is most bible teachers do not study Hebrew and Greek
Reading the Bible in it's ancient context is fine, but John Walton goes way too far. He claims that they didn't care about material creation. He claims that but doesn't prove it. I don't believe that for a second. And if they didn't care about the material creation, why is Genesis chapter one and two talking about it. It clearly is talking about material creation, no matter how much John Walton says it doesn't. John Walton is terribly wrong on this.
He is referring to the original Hebrew language that only speaks of functional origins not material. It is not to say material origins do not exist but that their language doesn’t account for it in the creation story, it is not referencing the material, so one can conclude it was not their way of thinking.
@@lammie2282 The original Hebrew language in Genesis chapter 1 does NOT ONLY speak of functional origins. No translation of the original Hebrew language gives that idea at all. It speaks of both making/creating (material creation) as well as the function of what He made. Sorry, John Walton is putting priority on his view of the ANE culture and reads that into the text, which is called eisegesis. That is not faithful bible interpretation. Faithful interpretation requires using exegesis. Genesis chapter one is actually correcting the ideas of the ANE culture, not following it.
"The bible claims ", of course there is zero proof. How unusual. Faith is what you have when you have nothing.
Yes! Faith is what you have when you have nothing…. nothing is freedom.
this guy is doing some serious mental gymnastics. How does a person claiming to know the old Testament say this garbage? Makes me wonder how many Jews have watched this and had to rip their clothing
If it was not written to us, we would be reading someone else’s letter! This man has no clue!
Deeply flawed theology and exegesis.
John Walton does not believe in Gods word he believes in his own understanding it makes him a fool its not me calling him a fool but the word is cheers
Steve Seiler sir, are you an Old Testament Scholar who have invested your life Studying the hebrew text and Ancient Near East background? please. Don't force your beliefs into the text. God's word is so much richer and powerful than what you think. God bless you.
R. Joël Guzman-Quispe With all due respect though, Dr.. Walter Kaiser, who is one of the world's leading Old Testament and Hebrew scholars, is of a different opinion than John Walton...
R. Joël Guzman-Quispe While John Walton has many good points in that the Jewish culture and its context needs to be considered, I would argue that reading too much out of the text is detrimental as well... Moreover according to John Walton in Genesis 1, God merely parrots human error in cosmology,.. do forgive me if I have more confidence in God and his word
I agree. And I've seen the argument from education, but neither has strictly education turned out anything besides rank atheism in our colleges and universities.
And how do you not believe in your own understanding of God's word when you read it without considering the ANE authors' intent in conveying God's word? As Dr. Walton has pointed out elsewhere, to read the scriptures without thinking about the ANE template of scripture is to necessarily read it with our own cultural template, which does distort the word of God as given through those He vested with that authority. Dr. Walton's ending admonition in this lecture is perfect for someone like you, who would claim that because you do not agree with Dr. Walton's exegetical approach to scripture, then he therefore must not believe in God's word. A little humility would be good for you.
this one is a straight on false teacher.....the account is quite straight forward.....just read the literal sense, into this text....
Boy does he miss the mark terribly, he opens by saying "I'm just trying to see what the Bible says" then proceeds to give nothing but ill formed opinions. I was soooooooo disappointed that Tim Mackie had him on his podcast recently. This man is a heretic.
Yep, it’s clearly heretical to read the Bible in it’s ancient context.
@@gabepearson6104 Reading the Bible in it's ancient context is fine, but John Walton goes way too far. He claims that they didn't care about material creation. He claims that but doesn't prove it. I don't believe that for a second. And if they didn't care about the material creation, why is Genesis chapter one and two talking about it. It clearly is talking about material creation, no matter how much John Walton says it doesn't. John Walton is terribly wrong on this.
Can you prove that Adam and Eve had an understanding the way we do of what makes things “material”, such as humans, animals, vessels, water, and air?
Adam was certainty not 1st man. Scripture means what it says & says what it means. So when Jesus said from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the beginning made them male & female’.. Gen1:1 Mk10:6 Matt19:4 Mk13:19 Heb1:10
This act which Jesus referred was:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male & female created he them & God blessed them’, & God said to them, “Be fruitful, & multiply, & Replenish the EARTH, & subdue it: & have dominion over the fish of the sea, & over the fowl of the air, & over every living thing that moves upon the EARTH & God said, Behold, I have given you
EVERY. ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive )
herb yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, &
EVERY tree, ( Yes here it says every read all inclusive)
In the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.” Gen1:27-29
But when God made Adam & placed him in GARDEN God was very specific ;
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. & the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. & out of the ground
the Lord God formed every beast of the field, & every fowl of the air; & brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: & whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Gen2:16-19
Adam was specifically told v2:17 not eat of Tree knowledge of good & evil.
Gen1 & Gen2 are separate accounts. Time betwixt these 2events remains unspecified.. A GREAT error comes when one equates Gen1&Gen2 for they are very different events
Jesus was clear, For He did not say from time of Garden He made Adam & Eve. But rather Jesus said:
from the beginning of the creation God made them male & female’ also.. ‘he which made them at the "beginning" made them male & female
Not Adam & Eve, not from dust, not from the time of garden. Jesus meant what was said & said what he meant, Adam, Eve,& garden were not in the creation... scripture means what is said and says what it means
Man in Gen1 was made From nothing Ex-Nehlio... Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Yet Adam in Gen2 was formed from dust of ground & Eve was formed from Adam's rib... thus Adam & Eve of Gen2 are not made Ex-nehlio, from nothing, as were the man & woman in the beginning. Man & Woman of Gen1 were given dominion over all earth that was watered by a mist neither did Gen1 have dietary restriction as given Adam & Eve in a garden watered by 4 rivers. Gen1 & Gen2 are completely different events, scripture does not err.
Jesus drew a line into the sands of time at Luke 16:16 The law & the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, & every man presseth into it.
There were 4kYrs of sin prior to John. "Behold the Lamb slain from foundation of this world." When was this present sinful world founded? but in the day of ADAM'S sin. For then Adam&Eve were clothed in skin of slain lamb & a redeemer promised. there remain 3k years from Jesus death.. John 2:19 Jesus answered & said unto them, Destroy this temple, & in three days I will raise it up. The final event is specified. Rev21:22-23 & I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty & the Lamb are the temple of it. & the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, & the Lamb is the light thereof.
Time between Gen1&Gen2 is Unspecified but finite. To equate Gen1&Gen2 as same events leads to great confusion There are many many facts to prove earth age is in excess of 6000Y BP, wiki article earth age completly refutes young earth psudoscience... and wiki cites just the most blatant proofs, there are others