Origins Today: Genesis through Ancient Eyes with John Walton

[@Seedbed]

Get our best-selling Bible study on the Old Testament - Epic of Eden - from our store here: >>> store.seedbed.com/products/epic-of-eden-by-sandra-richter

[@ProtestantismLeftBehind]

Seedbed Read the book. She did a great job

[@davidemory938]

😮😅😮

[@stevenmccarthy7039]

What a superb talk. Thank you Dr Walton for your exceeding clarity. I have a few of your books (very helpful) and as a now retired Chemistry and Science teacher it is so refreshing to hear the truth. The age of the earth therefore is utterly irrelevant in believing the truthfulness of the Word of God and in knowing The Word also. How we need to get messages like this out to young people. Praise God there are still lots of believing scientists and Science teachers out there. Thank you and keep up the good work, please!

[@ghostl1124]

I think the opposite of what you said is true. Dr. Walton is a rambler, and not an exegetical scholar that conservatives normally agree with.

[@waltnowpigpig5492]

Thank you for your service! I hope your replacement is as thoughtful and spiritual as you seem to be.

[@woobnoffer]

This is very powerful, and maybe one of the best treatments of Genesis 1-2 I've ever heard! Thank you John!

[@martin.asare33]

Read Gen 1 and 2 and tell me if you can escape the mention of material things being created in the creation days. The earth teaming with animal, the sea with fishes all which were not there in the in the earlier days and all were brought into being that day. Clearly it was not merely a ordering and function but also creating, ordering and assigning functioning to it. Which to me is objects and laws of science by which they operate to produce phenomenon. Be careful with what you take from this presentation. I am convinced its not accurate. It makes believers more amenable to evolution not even theistic one but natural without God. He clearly favors the scientific view of big bang but he is being cuoy about it.

[@Solideogloria00]

Martin Asare if you read Gen 1 and 2 with your 21st century mind, in modern scientific categories and Aristotelian mindset, of course you want to force material creation into the text.

[@spkidd]

Read his book. You can’t get everything from a video.

[@ghostl1124]

@@martin.asare33 Exactly!

[@thetruthchannel349]

@@martin.asare33 IF you view Gen 1 & 2 through an ancient Israelite view then you cannot see actual CREATION in Genesis because what they saw and even what modern Rabbis see is RESTORATION not Creation. 'Let there be light' is not God creating the Sun. The Hebrew denotes that the light is already there. Its just being blocked from earth's view. Its a chaos theme. The Bible essentially begins in Genesis the way it ends in Revelation - The sun is DARKENED. Then God ReCreates, Restores and makes all things 'New.' Revelation ends as Genesis begins. Ages are a cycle that always begin with Creation/Restoration and that always end in Judgement and Failure.

[@suparolly]

Temple & Rest. Powerful explanation.Thank you Dr. John Walton

[@drb8786]

I’m happy to say I’m a young earth creationist that enjoys listening to this. I obviously have my disagreements but the real faith is about Jesus and what he did on the tree. Glad to be apart of the Wesleyan tradition and I’m happy to be the black sheep among my brothers and sisters regarding genesis lol

[@charlesadair73]

DRB 87 I'm a couple years late to reply but I am also a former YEC who has changed his views I'm thinking you have too..... curious if you read Darryl Falks book "Coming to peace with science" ? It has changed my mind in multiple ways about the unneeded war we wage on science...this video mentions it all little bit... anyways God bless

[@bigbenhebdomadarius6252]

This guy makes so much sense. Unfortunately, the idea that there is no conflict between science and religion seems to be a dreadful disappointment to so many people.

[@1969cmp]

There is a conflict within science. Many of the assertions of evolutionary materialistic world view dressed up with scientific terminology are in trouble but they stick to it in order to keep the divine foot out of the door. Unfortunately many Christian teachers have been sucked into these false science and rearranging theology to suit. This has been happening for over a century and why bad ideas like gap theory has been getting traction.

[@natevanderw]

@@1969cmp ???? what?

[@Michael-uk3pj]

The question is not "is there conflict?" but "does there have to be?"

[@ballensnyder8771]

Excellent use of the “bed & breakfast” analogy to convey the overall linguistic concepts of intent. Beautiful.

[@vancesnyder2261]

I appreciate Seedbed showing these quality videos and getting the word out. We live in exciting times as people are learning to take Genesis as a literary gem and seeking to understand the ethos of that time. I appreciate Mr. Walton and his commitment to strengthen the church. Unfortunately, so many want to add to the Gospel that we turn away thoughtful seekers. I do not recall Jesus stating you must believe in a young earth, a fundamentalist hard biblical inerrancy, King James Only, pre millenialism in order to be saved. It would be nice to have access to Mr. Waltons slides though.

[@captainkev10]

4:21 Start of lecture

[@josieshoxx]

Thank you!

[@micahmatthew7104]

You’re the real mvp

[@moneymikk5291]

thanks for putting that there pookie

[@pastorernestalbuquerque4770]

So blessed hearing Dr John, all of this has really helped me being a minority in believing old earth creation view.

[@AnesuUnathi]

God bless you. God has certainly talked to me through you. I have seen the importance of the Sabbath and I'm growing in my understanding of it.

[@boyandhisdragon3751]

Awesome, May Elohim bless you and keep you and bring you Shalom.

[@Floridacoastwriter]

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.

[@darklard]

Thank you for such a cohesive and comprehensive comment. That is often severely lacking in comment sections.

[@lovemychacha]

Mind-Blowing! This helps me understand my long time thoughts that God created everything including science.

[@stinkypink72]

My name is John Walton I am a Untied States Marine Veteran any John Walton should be recognized. My time of our Lord helped me to become a Marine during sweat and pain. Our Lord knew I was going to be a Marine no matter hardships I earned my Eagle Globe and Anchor he knew I was and I did it wasnt easy. Theres nothing easy

[@SandyKH]

Thank you, Dr. Walton! I suddenly realized I had you in the mid 80s when your mustache was indeed substancial. You continue to teach me something new... and I genuinely look forward to reading the creation texts and studying them without thinking about science at all, but the order God was setting up. God is not a God of confusion but a God of peace.

[@imageinkdesign]

Issac Newton wrote that he expected to find a universe of laws, due to the character of the Law-Giver. This observation of natural law then informed his methods of inquiry.

[@rodfriesen4370]

Thanks you! You put my thoughts in way better language! Brilliant

[@deconlite]

Wow, not what I was expecting. Thanks John.

[@charlesadair73]

Thank you for posting this video !!

[@GarrettXPrime]

i wish wish we could have had dr heiser and yourself in a video

[@johnbullard902]

Double trouble

[@mikimeadows]

He makes some good points- it does not mean in extrapolation that whatever current idea the scientific community is touting is true because of this view of genesis.

[@franmorrison1080]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5mlm3-tbbudmKM

[@joycehaines34]

Good explanation of quantum physics, this brings it all into reality. Thank you.

[@sharonscott4162]

It is important because it is God's WORD AND people are massively CONFUSED!!!!!!!

[@The-DO]

Great lesson! Well done!

[@greatleviathan382]

I find Genesis way more meaningful and dynamic than how dogmatic, uninformed, fundamentalists interpret the text. And I can't believe how they just can never admit that they were incorrect in terms of interpretation. They think that they are "defending the faith" but in all reality they are embarrassing it. I say this with love but enough with uber literalist way of reading scripture.

[@JRobbySh]

They read Scripture though the eyes of 16th century philologists

[@majorharris8194]

Great Leviathan What exactly are you talking about? Please qualify.

[@saenzperspectives]

Harlem Night biologos.org/uploads/static-content/Giberson-scholarly-essay-1.pdf

[@rokitman5753]

@@majorharris8194 uber fundementalist gay hateing kjv christians. Is that the answer you needed to hear

[@1Audioworks]

In my opinion this is the most literal way of interpretation, in the proper sense of the word literal. What did the original author intend to convey to the original audience? That's the only question I'm ever concerned with

[@ym8739]

Thank you Dr. Walton!! If you come from an eastern culture this non-materialistic view is right on mark of how the bible is view..

[@JoshuaHults]

VERY POWERFUL ! I already uploaded a shorter talk of his on my page to get this information out there ! This is sooo important

[@MrMatthewScarborough]

Would it be possible for us to feature this teaching on our KZbin program Christ Centered?

[@grantbartley483]

He makes a compelling case which creationists would benefit from engaging with.

[@SELAHPAUSE]

Beyond creation science by Jeff Vaughn and Tim Martin is another good resource

[@suparolly]

A question: Is it necessary that the Creation Account be EITHER about Function OR about Objects?? Can we comfortably, rightly conclude that it is about BOTH Function AND Objects?? What is there in the text to negate the "BOTH" possibility? Why do we assume it is Either / Or??

[@sharonscott4162]

Great teaching and understanding!!!!

[@kevinp5369]

Love your analogies, your clarification on these points. I've only been puzzled and dragged in two directions for some 50 years over the correct story of creation, the real one. Now the direction of my studies into these points is clearer, something like turning the headlights on.

[@account2871]

Eye-opening

[@JK-tr2mt]

I think I understand his nuanced functionality perspective and certainly learnt something new about the rest and temple (or should I say sanctuary) implications. However, I still don't think the functionality view totally removes the material view, especially I was always taught that the ancient Hebrews thought in concrete terms.

[@mian1285]

That's brilliant!

[@TheNikolinho]

ok, i have a question for the beginning of the video because that's where i am at now: when Dr. Walton compares through his PowerPoint presentation the cosmic geography of ancient Egypt, and then the one of the ancient Jews, with the dome in waters and Leviathan under Sheol, and then he said "that's how old Jews saw the world", he didn't explain to the end WHAT does it mean? does it mean old Jews got it wrong and filled beginning of Genesis with inaccurate data which God allowed them to, OR what did Dr. Walton mean when he said that??? it's confusing (to me, at least)... does he mean that we can't rely on Genesis 1-2? does it mean beginning of Genesis is half true-half false? does he mean there is no Leviathan or there were no waters "above" which were emptied when the Flood happened? i don't understand his unfinished thought. please help

[@luigipkxh]

He says God is not authenticating their view, whatever it was, nor trying to communicate ANY cosmology. Genesis 1 communicates THEOLOGY. The inspired text shows who God is, his character and the purpose of his creating work, not how he did it. If he explained how he did it nobody would ever understand anything, and we would only have a superficial description, instead we have a profound insight into he mind of God.

[@ravissary79]

I'm also curious about how authoritative the statement is. Where is that illustration from, when, who agreed with it?

[@peachjwp]

IMHO: Dr. Walton is saying Cosmologies change. The writer of Genesis used the understanding of the Ancient Near East. The Medieval Church used the Ptolemaic solar system as the one that the Bible held to. Today we have had a different cosmology, BiG Bang with a heliocentric solar system. Spiritual truth of the Scriptures remains eternal. But the viewpoint of the make up of the heavens has been updated. We still need a Savior. God is still Great. Etc. In addition if God had began to explain current astronomy to the Ancient Writer he would have not understood it. That wasn’t the idea. It’s likely some time in the future, science will have another updated idea of how the universe operates, as well.

[@TheMoravians]

He means that only people who have PhDs in ancient literature (like him) and can read in a couple ancient languages (like him) can understand what Genesis 1-2 is "really" saying. You and I must trust that the experts "know" what the words mean, even if it seems that he's saying that Genesis 1-2 wasn't understood by anyone during the previous 1900 years or so. But now, with the special wisdom that only the "experts" have, can we really understand what primitive ignorant people would have understood easily about Genesis 1-2, over 2000-3000 years ago. Just wait until him and the "experts" tell us what other parts of the Bible "really mean", because there's no reason to assume that we've "correctly interpreted" any of the Bible "the way the original audience did" back in those ancient, primitive times. Just trust him, he's an "expert" after all.

[@johnbullard902]

@@TheMoravians exactly!

[@thetruthchannel349]

I think we over-estimate how differently they viewed the world. The ancients viewed things through a hyper-physical model. They had to have understood certain things about the motions of planets and stars because they tracked them. They understood eclipses. They knew a lot more about Astronomy than we think they did. Their view of WHY things were they way they were is what we see depicted Same with Israelite Cosmology which really isn't that different from Egyptian Cosmology. They were viewing the world as a construct OF cosmic geography that tied Spiritual forces to natural processes and thats why their view of Cosmology appears TO US the way it does. I don't think they would have been as perplexed by our modern 'Earth photo' as we might think. Its not the 'stuff' that they viewed way differently. Its the Powers & Spiritual forces behind the stuff that they viewed differently. They thought in terms of how different 'worlds' interact with ours. The heavens, the underworld, etc.

[@n2the1]

Hi, I was wondering why if this is how Gen 1 and 2 was read by the Israelites, then when and how did it begin to be read differently? Why wasn't the correct way of reading it passed down through the generations into the early church, or was it? How did it begin to be read as a materials creation story rather than a functional home / temple creation story? Thank you for your work and your answer if possible? :)

[@WINDOWS94198]

probably it was interpreted differently after the destruction of the Temple, where Jews and Christian began it's separate way, the Christian used to be a denomination of Jewish religion. This was also the time where the MASORITIC TEXT was made the canon of Jewish Bible.

[@ericvail2225]

John Walton wonderfully explains how God communicated to the ancient people of Israel in categories they understood, without giving them new science or ideas about the geography of the cosmos. Through the centuries, God's people (by the grace of God) have had to communicate the teachings of Scripture to other cultures and contexts in categories that those people understood. Alexander the Great conquered much of the Ancient Near Eastern lands in the 4th century BCE. The interaction between Ancient Near Eastern and Hellenistic categories was unavoidable. Biblical ideas had to be expressed in different paradigms--ones that were more fixated on material and form. Christians in the first few centuries had to explain doctrines using the philosophical categories of Hellenism. That definitely pushed the conversation about creation toward material origins (see, for example, Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo). Over the course of Christian history, Christians have continued to reflect on the teachings of Scripture and what those might mean in the philosophical and scientific categories of the time (see, for example, Christopher Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science). Walton has asked us to be aware that we are reading Scripture in contemporary categories (usually without realizing it), and he has given us a window into the original categories.

[@garysweeten5196]

When Christianity entered the Greek world it was interpreted through the eyes of Plato and Gnostics who separated “spirit/soul” from the physical body and world. Thus, contrary to basic Hebrew, there is a “spiritual nature” and a “physical nature” so true knowledge is only “spiritual”. Thus, science studies the anti spiritual world which is always sinful.

[@kenwillis9828]

I wonder how Dr. John Walton's views the Genesis chapters 1 - 6 lectures by Dr. Arnold Murray of The Shepherd’s Chapel, if any or would? I find overlapping in both their interpretations.

[@Bobbygirl1232]

Simply beautiful insightful and makes prefect sense with who God is and how he moves… truly God led Holy Spirit filled. As well as intelligence wisdom deep understanding and rational sense. Wonderful perspective that makes sense with all of it.. I read and study quite a bit. I’m always searching for a deeper understanding with intelligent and holy spiritual wisdom. Too often people go too far and twist it. The teachers get caught up on conspiracy theories and far fetched ideas that loose the truth of God. But sounds exciting This.. is superb.. chefs kiss lol.. so refined.. his analogies and articulation.. I love the intro because he sets you up for understanding if you have no clue and aren’t familiar with what he’s saying.. truly blessed. I’m blessed that I found him recommended in the comments from another video

[@StanGraham1]

Terry Mortenson correctly showed the errors in John Walton's approach to Genesis 1-11. Would that John would humble himself to read Terry's examination of John's POV.

[@sjs9354]

Proverbs 23:7. “As he thinketh in his heart, so is he.” ….. the heart is where the “SOUL” dwells. We can compromise in our head, and pretend to be someone or something we aren’t. And even lie. But how we feel in our hearts, is the true self. Jesus didn’t need to correct what God had inspired to be written. So God was in the dark nothingness for trillions of earth years if it were in time, since He is eternal. Then He decided to make the heavens and earth in one day. Think about that for awhile. With your heart. Not your brain. Genesis 1:1 is not an introduction. God created the heaven and earth in the beginning. Moving on. He don’t say how long He took or what He created BEFORE He instituted our time. How far back was God suppose to go and write it all in the Bible? One thousand earth years. Ten billion earth years? He started Genesis by telling us that He created heavens and earth. And now we will get on with what is your business. I can’t watch any more of this theological speech and no spiritual interruption of the Word. Return email notifications are not available at this time.

[@mateoromo5587]

Amazing lecture !!!!

[@wpankey57]

I love and appreciate Dr. Walton. He takes you to the biblical text and seeks to understand it in the historical context in which it was written. Along with Gordon Fee and Doug Stuart, (How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth), he believes that the Word of God was written to them (the original audience) *but is for us*. He seeks to determine the author's intention (see also E.D. Hirsh and Walter Kaiser). Having said that, I have to demur over his view of a "historical Adam and Eve." I think *he is still thinking too literally when it comes to their historicity*. The text - in historical creation myth context -- simply doesn't support that view. Having come so far in, understanding the text, he abandons the historical and literary context and bows the knee before an overly literalistic reading of Genesis 2.

[@brocknspectre1221]

Excellent thought provoking talk! Am I to understand you to say that when God ruled on the eighth and ninth day and is continuing to rule today, that means he’s no longer ‘asa’ or working, but residing within his works? I mean, is God existing in a sort of ever present Sunday where we go when we leave our asa? Sorry if I’m being the slow kid, it’s just a question I’m pondering…

[@kommissioned]

“In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.”” - John 5:17

[@carlmorrison9789]

That was good!

[@WINDOWS94198]

I just know this gentleman about an hour ago, and i believe he will help me get out to the Flat Earth. I can now say accept Science and Space but not evolution.

[@ManuGeorge777]

Amazing 😲

[@stevenfrasier5718]

The camera operator is too frustrating for me to watch this. If the speaker indicates, we should be seeing what's indicated.

[@johnbullard902]

Says a lot about Asbury seminary that they allow Walton to influence their students…

[@theisticlogos2539]

Good presentation, but I think the Israelite would know what they were looking at because the land, water, and clouds.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

They would have No Frame of reference.

[@barbarza]

1:13 min --- EXCELLENTE!! -- EDEN was HIS Temple

[@1969cmp]

Sadly, he doesn't believe Adam was the first person.

[@barbarza]

@@1969cmp and no wonder. Torah has no chapter separations. Much more is explained in Book of Yasher that Vatican and it's agents excluded from the canon despite that it is mentioned 3 times in the canonical writs.

[@potterylady44]

@@1969cmp he wasn't

[@1969cmp]

@@potterylady44 ....because ?

[@Jim-Mc]

I'd like to hear Walton or others' view on John 1:1-3 since the Greek word αρχή is much more definitive as "beginning". I can accept Genesis may be interpreted alternatively, but I can't accept that the gospel writer is not referring to Genesis here.

[@carlosmuller3565]

Jim to be fair though, John (gospel writer) doesn’t use the definite object in John 1:1. So it does grammatically suit Gen. 1:1

[@TheMoravians]

There's other places in the Gospels and New Testament that refer to material people in Genesis as well. Take a good hard look at them, in context of course, and see if they fit this "alternative interpretation" of Genesis. Here are a few I found just by searching for two key terms: Jesus quotes Genesis in Matthew 19 (& Mark 10), "He who made them in the beginning 'made them male and female'" Does that fit with this "non-materials creation story"? Luke 3 includes the complete genealogy of Jesus going all the way back to Adam, Seth, Enos, etc. At what point in that genealogy do metaphorical people switch to real "material" people? (can metaphorical people father real material people?) Paul writes about Adam in at least three places. Do these fit more with Adam being a real, "material" person or more as part of a "house/temple non-material" creation story? Romans 5 "But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the transgression of Adam" 1 Corinthians 15 "And so it is written, 'the first Adam became a living soul,' the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit." 1 Timothy 2, "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Jude writes, "And Enoch, the seventh from Adam, also prophesied to these, saying, Behold, the Lord came with myriads of His saints."

[@fullpreteristnow]

A lot of this is good. We need to look through the eyes of the ANE culture, Hebraic eyes. This is the problem with reading the N.T. We want to read it though modern eyes, but it was written by Hebrews, with Hebraic thinking. Much of the N.T. is quoted from and based upon the O.T. Heaven and Earth is not the physical entities, but cultic or political entities. God coming on a cloud was never taken literally, for example. So the N.T. writers would use the same ideas and phrases as the O.T. writers and prophets.

[@whitestone4805]

Anyone want to offer a thought on the concept presented here of rest and rule going hand in hand….and considering this in light of the command to literally rest and “keep the sabbath holy” (Saturday, not Sunday as the gentile church decreed)

[@reginaldodonoghue9253]

What was the Hebrew word for 'Solid sky' then?

[@anunknownentity1637]

שמיים מוצקים

[@thebarenecessities]

Raqia

[@garlandjones7709]

There isn't a word for solid sky. The sky isn't solid. Raqia means something spread out. Genesis 1 doesn't teach a solid dome. There are two explicit verses in the chapter that make that reading impossible

[@toddt.o.]

A lot of premises being established by redefining what words really meant to a different generation. It seems to open up all possibilities of the gap theory.

[@ABRAHAMABRAHAM-x3d]

Egyptian Cosmic Geography 13:39 Israelite Cosmic Geography 15:44 Its important to note that God spoke to man, in terms that he understood since early man didnt have access to 21st century telescopes and technology to know how the world really looked like. Hence the ancient texts would be written with this understanding of the author. It is incorrect on our part as a reader to force 'our' meaning into the text that it didn't have in the first place.

[@hadassah179]

What is the difference between Gen 1:27 and Gen. 2:7 ? who is "them" in 1:27?

[@Archie0902]

This is the problem with academics who study the Bible, after hundreds of years of commentators how dies an academic have anything novel to write his thesis on! And here we are, after 500 years and more of the Church holding the belief that in the beginning God created everything from nothing and secular Sciences mocking until 1920 when, to their shock they discover the universe did have a beginning. And now the biblical academic says oh the bible says the material universe is eternal and God just made some order. And then the academic looks at God resting on the 7th day and tells us this means God ruled from his temple and didn't rest like the silly English word suggests. Apparently he knows the ancient Israelites never woukd have thought it really just meant rest. Hmm so the 4th Commandment when God said to rest on the seventh day, the original audience understood that God meant they were commanded to rule on the seventh day? No, I think the hebrew word really does mean rest as it says 'rest from your Labor and do no work...for in 6 days God worked and on the seventh he...rested! I don't think this academic has much of value to add the the body of knowledge we had before he went looking for a novelty to study. Just my thoughts after waiting an hour on this old upload.

[@johnbullard902]

Exactly! Making big bucks off of a ‘New! And Improved!’ way of reading the bible.

[@jblackpost]

raqia is definitely a solid structure in the bible. Other than that, great stuff.

[@hewdickson9837]

Heavy!

[@maryblushes7189]

Right!

[@matthewdarby4883]

The lecture was good and informative; the only critique I have is that the verses he posted were all off by one or two lines. The passages he quoted do support his claim, but posting the wrong verse makes him seem less credible. I hope he fixes this for the more skeptical believers out there.

[@SamOgilvieJr]

The starting point is not lacking matter. The starting point is lacking order(function, role, purpose, worth). In the ancient world the separation or line between non-existent and existence is not material but functional. It has to do with order. It is not referring to scientific function but how something is functioning for people in the world that God made for them. In the ancient world, existence is defined by have a function( role and purpose in an ordered system). Genesis 1 provides an account of functional origins, not material origins. Genesis 1 is about God bringing order(functionality) into the midst of non-order(non-functionality). It is fruitless to ask what objects God created on any given day, for the text is not concerned about the existence of matter. Naming and separating are acts of creation.

[@mageshtmcseremban]

anybody having his book in PDF format ?

[@carlosmuller3565]

Mageswaran Shalom lol support the man and buy it

[@WinkUwu]

I hope you found it it’s been 6 years. If you haven’t found it I can send you it

[@shubhamgurunglama8829]

Genesis was written in a sense how those events appeared to a primitive mind... Also, there's an account when eve was created that Adam said she's flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone... and eve made out of his ribs.. do you trust his literal explanation? Adam didn't even know that he was naked until he ate fruit of knowledge...so how can we literally trust his words... Thus, we really need to see the chapter of Genesis through the eye of a primitive mind!

[@johnbullard902]

Er, no

[@Traildude]

I think he's a little overboard saying "it has nothing to do with material creation". It certainly does have, but only in the same sense that a play has something to do with the sets; without the sets you have not much of a play -- they're just not what the play is about. So this Creation account has something to do with making material things -- they're just not what the Creation is about. That said, I found myself cheering for his part about rest!

[@michaelszczys8316]

If Pluto is not a planet, what is it? A blob of cosmic jelly? Like telling someone the moon is not a moon anymore. Should suddenly I not be able to see it?

[@louisanna30]

He lost me at period of light/day because if God separated the light from darkness, according to the speaker, Light is a period of time and darkness is a period of time, then why does God have to separate them if they weren't together? He made the light and it was good and he separated the light from the darkness. The word separate in Hebrew seems to indicate a division, a distinction being made between light and darkness. Is the speaker asserting that perhaps both periods of time were simultaneous? Huh? No. No I think the Bible is not indicating times but components of creation of which light and darkness are components. Components ( liquid or gas in nature perhaps) that are uniquely intertwined. This is interesting however. Oh, if you know please, let me know - in a respectful manner. people seem to be insulting each other when responding. Thank You.

[@bigbenhebdomadarius6252]

louisanna30 What Professor Walton is claiming is merely that that the point of the text is not to describe the creation of the material basis of light and darkness, but rather to proclaim that God established the the means of recognizing the passage of time. It is an interpretation that makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, if we want to interpret the text in a more literal fashion, ignoring the meaning the text would have had for the people at the time it was written, then we have to deal with the question of what is making the light, since the creation of the sun and moon did not take place until the following day.

[@louisanna30]

BigBen Hebdomadarius I see your point. I guess for me time was introduced the moment he began to create, and the concept of day is just a measure of a period existing in eternity. Also I note the bearing of John 1 and seeing this part of Genesis also providing a picture of lights inability to be consumed by darkness. The material nature of light and darkness have already been mentioned. my intention was was so pissed on if he's so light as an isolated time and darkness as isolated time and not necessarily working in conjunction. However an interesting deliberation. I don't think that the various proposed interpretations contradict nor emasculate each other and may provide when combined incomplete mosaic of what creation not only looks like but meant to the original heroes as well as the modern audience. I'm just thinking out loud. thank you for your response.

[@ravissary79]

@@louisanna30 time is relative without a regular context, a rhythm. The day night cycle is a regular rhythm.

[@Bill-f2q1j]

Sounds like this came from Dr Mike Heisel. I wonder who came up with this type of presentation first?????

[@beccapansing456]

Takes him forever to say something.

[@2NDFLB-CLERK]

▪ It takes something to say "forever". 🟥

[@budyharianto8229]

The way the word is used... "Spiritual Discernment"... 2000 years of the History of Christianity... make the used of this specific kind of word: "spiritual discernment" ... has its own "inner" growth over time depending on it's christian era:... (began from "east" greek orthodox, latin "west" rome catholic and then move to english/german reformation era)... Its also true within its theological, explanatory wording on each era,... From mystical's one (eastern orthodox) to more "adaptable" with its scientific (rationalistic era) in reformation movement.. So when it coupled with this: (its also true) quote that: "Man is a product of his own culture_era" And as conclusion: What is meant by that is that: Man's reflection (both mental and spiritual) capacity of his own thingking has only +/- 100 years of scope... So what to be expected then,...?? when a man explains about the absolute "objective" Truth, ... in this 2000 years span of this history, and in this specific theme: "spiritual discernment".... if not only just talking about his "partial" understanding of "his" subjective truth from his thinking pattern?!.... Tell me if i am wrong please...🙏

[@grahamflowers]

God created everything in reverse from the end to the beginning then he started the clock regards Graham Flowers

[@caonexpeguero9984]

To have to go through so much trouble to change what has been written is all but vanity and vexation of spirit.

[@suckyskiz]

Walton is great. You're advocating for laziness dressed up as piety. Stop it.

[@paulearle5361]

@@suckyskizExactly! Well said👍

[@tomdix5167]

And then there was Chapter 3.

[@swedee5870]

I’d like to see the ancient Hebrew depiction of this supposed ancient Hebrew view of the world. What he shows is an ancient Egyptian depiction of the ancient Egyptian view and a modern depiction of the supposed ancient Hebrew view. Anyone please point me to the primary Hebrew sources if they come to mind.

[@davidverlaney7764]

Very interesting. Helps explain some stuff. someone said this life is auditioning for eternity. With God or without God. Jesus. Or not Jesus. Everything else is probably six in one hand, half dozen in the other.

[@CJFCarlsson]

Mixing up the ancient readers with the eternal author

[@suckyskiz]

One of the principle ways God works in the world, according to the Bible, is through people. God did not write scripture, humans did. They were inspired by God, but they were also immersed and informed by their own cultural understanding. The greatness of God is demonstrated in that despite the cultural context of the authors we can know the Truth that God revealed through their writings. The difficulty is that people equate reading the Bible with studying the Bible. Walton is right to teach that the Bible is written for us, but not to us. Biblical study requires more than a simplistic reading that brings all of our own culture that we are immersed in and informed by and that is where we make anachronistic errors in our understanding of scripture.

[@patrickmcdonnell2067]

What do you mean we USED TO think Pluto was a planet? I am no follower!

[@hiddenfromyourview]

"...and the human genome and what it suggests" And what DOES it suggest? You never answer the question, but in the context of what you said it in towards the end, you seem to believe that science not only can be merged with the Biblical account of our origins, but that it also overrides the Biblical account of our origins. Say what you will about the origins of the Earth between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1. But it is made VERY clear that we were made in a single, 24-hour period.

[@TheWoodlandSeamstress]

I'd suggest you do a bit more research before claiming it's "VERY" clear what the creation days are saying 😉

[@toshokanthelibrary8006]

Good speaker but at this rate he'll never get to the point

[@gregjones2217]

Reading genesis through ancient eyes simply means studying another creation myth. There are thousands available. Why chose this one?

[@CarlosElio82]

At min 12' Walton points to a picture of Earth from space and says that if you somehow brought and Israelite to watch the picture he would not not what he was seeing, because that not how they saw the world. Has Walton read about Aristarchus of Samos? If he brought Aristarchus in the time machine, the Greek philosopher would have recognized the picture saying "that's us!" How to reconcile the image of an all powerful God having to twist his message along the tortuous path of primitive and savage societies, when philosophers and mathematicians of the time were able to write messages in a beautiful and direct manner without those inconveniences? Either that god is not all powerful and far from it, or it is all a fictional story.

[@rickirubio3973]

I loved the lecture but im still a young earth believer..

[@TheSignstoSee]

I'm a Young Earther also cause the Elohim we Worship Yahweh, is able to transition Time and Space, in fact he's watching the whole thing from the Bleacher so to speak. All these so called PHD's need write their books, make their money. Our Living Diety, Yahweh, the Son Yeshua and the Holy Spirit;m He Already Wrote His Book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm 61 years old, born on Nisan 1, Jewish Believer in a Jewish Messiah. The Pre Flood People were way smarter than us. Since they released the King James Bible, just in the last 50 years there are so many NEW LATEST GREATEST VERSION. I WOULD AGREE THAT THE ESV BEING BASED ON THE DEAD SEA SCROLL. The Entire Gospel is in the First Testament, Yeshua came to get the Pharisees back on track, today same Pharisees that are decieved. They don't read Isaiah 53, or the Writings and the Prophets.........if you can't read the First TESTAMENT AND GET IT, GOOD LUCK ON THE SECOND. COME QUICKLY YESHUA........THE WORLD IS DELUDED, SICK AND FULL OF CHEMTRAILS.......HELP US LORD.......AND FORGIVE US.

[@greatleviathan382]

Well this is young earth creationism at it's best.

[@truethinker221]

Ya i wonder what God did during the infinite eternity before the earth was created ?

[@1969cmp]

Yeah, I can dig that. Cheers from a fellow 6 x 24 hour days believer and a former materialistic evolutionist.

[@garlandjones7709]

​@@TheSignstoSeeyoung earth creation is fine if you understand what the Hebrew word bara being translated as create means. If you interpret it to mean the physical formation of our globe and universe, then no, the Bible doesn't teach a young earth. It teaches a pre-existing globe and universe when day one of genesis 1 started.

[@RonaldHenderson-c7c]

😮

[@ONeilMatthewMartin-zn4jz]

Virgin Mary were you get father from

[@glennewell2436]

I guess that means you believe post modern literary criticism is a fraudulent discipline ? Ipso facto you have just alienated yourself from the Academy. You are a brave man lol.

[@eswn1816]

Comment: "What did God do on the eighth day?" Well, look at Genesis. After the seventh day there is no ending (evening and morning) ... We are still in the 7th day... the 8th day is described in the Book of Revelation.

[@dianasaur2131]

David was not God of course it took Him years. Our 7 day week was ordained by God as a constant reminder of how long Creation took. There is no way to measure time as it is relative to perspective and can be altered easily by speed, movement, altitude and gravity. Atomic Clocks don't run at the same rate on Earth. Radiometric dating is based on 6 assumptions not facts, and different radiation techniques don't even agree with eachother. Earth is not called a temple, and the generations clearly set out means its not old. Even genetic mutation rates demonstrate creation cannot be old.

[@1969cmp]

The wrath is His foot stool.

[@testimonies888]

Me thinks Mr Walton has a problem with Creation. Genesis 1 is about God creating not just time and space but everything, including us. God is the author of ancient texts not humans.

[@dianasaur2131]

The Bible talks about nature teaching, natural man being wicked, etc even science is born out of biblical principles, God ordaining law for how everything works etc not that He needs to constantly twiddle. Don't assert man was as ignorant about nature and God as you are about the thoughts they had.

[@CarlosElio82]

min 10: "They are Israelites, they are not like us" The same different people that were not like us used thee same mathematics that we use today. They knew Pythagorean triples. To a very narrow degree we need to "adjust" our understanding to that audience, like changing hexadecimal notation to decimal notation, but nothing that involves substantial changes in fundamental principles like gender equality or transmutation of metals at room temperature.

[@wretch1]

Its true; the 'of the' of genesis 2:7 isn't in the hebrew! In translations it's in italics for that reason. Dust of the ground I think is more of a reference to man's comparison to God. Man is just a creature and not holy. Looks Exodus 3:5 for a similar idea. Also Isaiah 6:2.

[@intercessorz7479]

Sorry, OT was not written for the ancient Israelites only; it is written for the Judges, Prophets , Kings, Exiles, Pharisees, Apostles and all the Christians over the millenniums too!!! When God stretches the heavens, modern people can understand and explain with our physical knowledge; while the ancient Israelites could understand in a different manner. For God is all knowing! Why should we under estimate His ability to convey the truth appropriately for readers of all generations with the same sentence?🙏🙏🙏

[@thebarenecessities]

You literally said the same thing he did. It was written FOR us but it wasn't written TO us.

[@VirtueEffect]

Excelent Feng shui

[@robertcain3426]

There are some good comments here, to which I'd like to add. The scriptures are not a science book. But, rather, a book of righteousness. Science and Righteousness are not on the same plane. However, for me, science is man's discovery of God's creation. Though, a carnal mind cannot understand or glorify God. The Genesis story cannot and should not be taken literally. There is no benefit in the literal viewing of it. In contrast, the great benefit lies with the metaphoric view of the creation story, where every word has meaning in terms of revealing the righteousness of God. For, in it lies the keys to unlocking the Creator's great plan of redemption and judgement of humanity.

[@jonageskuland]

Oh??. So the years of the person's like Adam, Seth, Noah does not matter???? The number are just there for a "home" reason?? The gospel seem to take it much more historical. So also most Jewish commentators from long before year 0. 😊

[@charlesarman]

See Geneis2.7