Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
John Walton: Creation in Six Ordinary Days?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 сер 2024
- Is John Walton a six-day creationist? The answer may surprise you.
Walton is a Wheaton professor, and author of the Lost World series of books, explaining how ancient literature can inform how Scripture is interpreted.
----
Peaceful Science is making space for differences with a civic practice of science. Support us for just $1, $5, or $10 per month, to gain access to exclusive benefits. / peacefulscience
The intention of Genesis 1 is to inform/ give an account of an actual creation event. The author clearly makes the claim of a literal 6 days of creation of the earth and stars. No matter how people try to twist it to make it fit with modern science, it just doesn't fit. For me as a believer in Christ and a believer in modern science, I have a yet unresolved conflict.
I believe the 7 days in creation are literal days but they are not our, 24-hour days, they are rather divine days based on God's 7 Spirits.
I believe there is a 7-day eternal cycle in the heavenly realm, each day is founded on God's 7 Spirits and according to these 7 days, God created the world.
This was amazing thank you for creating such great content 👍🙏
Walton has been busy!
SHEESH JOHN WALTON GOT THAT HEAT
The New Testament says clearly that Abraham (in the Old Testament) was saved, that is, counted as righteous, by faith. (Romans 4: 3)
Mr. Swamidass, maybe something to improve for next time = be careful not to interrupt your guest. 0:59, 1:07, 1:56, 3:04.
It seems possible that Moses (the writer of Genesis) was recording - in some fashion - revelation from God regarding the beginning of things. Is it not possible that Moses, over the course of 7 days, received this immense creation drama and marked off in his own time, what he "saw." In some fashion similar to how we watch any drama acted out today, whether on stage or screen, such dramas can cover a portion of a character's life or multiple generations and immense spans of time that we would view in say 1 evening or 3 successive evenings. Did the people in such dramas really live their entire life or multiple generations in just 1 to 3 days? Furthermore, I could tell you of the drama I saw over 1 to 3 evenings, But you would be erroneous to think that the people in those dramas were born, lived, married, had children, and died in 1-3 days.
Yes, it could be that. The problem i cannot solve is why would God not add any clue or hint about the development of our physical world, what science has discovered in our time.
I could easily imagine how in the book of Job or Ecclesiastes you could find a place where it would say something like this: "from the life on the palm of your hand so small you cannot see it to the stars so distant away you cannot see them, all of it grew from one and the same seed ancient times ago"
And this: "man too was an animal ancient times ago."
These type of short verses would be a crystal clear indicator for what we have discovered through science like Big bang and Evolution.
But we just dont have anything like this in the Bible, this is why so many Christians and atheists are clashing with each other, saying that Bible and science are contradicting each other.
What Moses truly really meant:
"So, God created the world-we're good with that? Okay. And then God invented light...don't know what that light really was, but it separated darkness from the light-oh, and God thus by creating light created day and night, our 24-hour days. We still good so far? Okay.
After this God made heaven...no, the expanse-heaven (sheesh, not the city God lives in; that was made a long time ago!): the second 24-hour day.
And so there were waters under the expanse as well as waters over the expanse...what? Yeah, water above the heavens...no, not THAT heaven, the expanse-heaven; I thought we understood that! And no, I don't know why the water in heaven didn't fall out (well, it did eventually, but we'll talk about that later).
To shorten things up here, God then created vegetables and other plants, trees, shrubs, you name it: third day.
And then God created the sun and moon...what? How did the vegetables grow without the sun? Well, there was photosynthesis going on from that first light God created, the light that gives us 24-hour days...what? What do you mean you can't have a 24-hour day without the sun and a solar system?
Alright, let's go back and review the, astronomy, geology and physics you studed in high school. This is all very scientific and quite simple to understand."
See, that's what Moses really meant in giving us Genesis!
You stuck in the 19th-20th century?
5:00-6:30 Walton sounds incoherent. He says, while still holding to a young earth position, he found no indication that "yom" involved an extended period of time, so as a result he wanted to avoid the young earth position. That makes no sense.
One thing I agree with doctor Walton about is that Genesis 1 isn't trying to teach science. No, it's presenting history. The history of the 6 days of creation that consisted of the daytime and the evening time, just as we have today.
To try to read anything else into the text about God trying to communicate that He was building a home is just that (i.e. reading INTO the text; otherwise known as eisegesis).
Claiming that the days of creation narrative is metaphorical is insulting to the character of our Creator.
The variety of biblical interpretation throughout the millennia is a very good indication that god is a either a very poor communicator or (most probably) that the Bible is a collection of ancient text written by pre-scientific men in an attempt to understand and explain natural phenomenon. One can appreciate the stories and teachings presented in the Bible (and other ancient literary texts) as an atheist - naturalist. The apologetic mental gymnastics must be so exhausting.
There is no solid reason to believe all of humanity descended from only two modern homo sapiens whose names and stories only the ancient Hebrews knew and preserved.
But there is every reason to believe such stories were part of an imaginative cultural attempt to try and explain how the world and humanity began. “Adam” (dirt, clay, dust-man) and “Eve” (mother of all living, and dropping the earlier semantic Sumerian pun in their creation myth where the mother of life is also lady of the rib) got together to bring forth humanity.
Likewise, all other creatures per Genesis arose likewise from dirt or water, looking more or less as they already looked to the ancients. That was their cultural mindset back then.
In order to realize the naĩveté of most of these interpretations, consider that the Hebrew legend explains the Babylonian name Babel from the Hebrew vocabulary, the writers being satisfied with mere approximations of sounds. “Balel” (the Hebrew word for mixed up/confused) sounds enough like “Babel” (the Babylonian word for gateway of God) to inspired a satirical polemic that mocks the fall of Babylon and formerly oppressed peoples leaving to go back to their homelands.
Cain (Kajin) sounds like the Hebrew for “gotten” (kaniti, “I have acquired/gotten,” hence the legend arose that when Cain was born to Eve she said, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord” (Gen 4:1)
Reuben from rah beonji, “he hath regarded my misery” (Gen 29:32), etc.
Jacob is interpreted as “heelholder” because at birth he held his brother, whom he robbed of the birthright, by the heel (Gen 25:26);
Zoar means ‘trifle,’ because Lot said appealingly, ‘It is only a trifle’ (Gen 19:20,22);
Beersheba is ‘the well of seven,’ because Abraham there gave Abimelech seven lambs (21:28 ff.);
Isaac (Jishak) is said to have his name from the fact that his mother laughed (sahak) when his birth was foretold to her (18:12), and so forth.
Every student of Hebrew knows that these are not satisfactory etymologies.
"But there is every reason to believe such stories were part of an imaginative cultural attempt to try and explain how the world and humanity began. "
It's illogical and with no evidence to support your statement that the Creation account is an imaginative cultural attempt to explain the origins of humanity. All the account has to be, and all it should be read as, is God's say on His rule and authority over all other gods (taking a poke at all other accounts of gods and creation), stated within the confines of the current understanding of the then known world, and not meant to be a linear, chronological or scientific statement about the origin of humanity. The Genesis account does not conclude decisively that Adam and Eve were the first two people ever on earth; this was clearly stated in the video. It leaves open an interpretation for people to have already existed outside the garden.