The Lost World of Adam and Eve - Dr. John Walton - Lecture 3 - Hayward 2016

The 2016 Hayward Lectures are entitled "Engaging Genesis Today: New Light on Biblical Origins" by Dr. John H. Walton.
This third lecture is entitled "The Lost World of Adam and Eve".
The Hayward lectures, an annual lectureship in theology and related subjects at Acadia Divinity College. The lecture series was endowed by the late Mrs. C.C. Hayward of Wolfville, NS. In the 45 years since the lectureship began, Acadia has welcomed such distinguished guests as Leander Keck, Viktor Frankl, Elton Trueblood, Jaroslav Pelikan, Stephen Neil, John Bright, Martin Marty, Bernhard Anderson, Helmut Koester, James Sanders, Howard Marshall, James Dunn, John Stackhouse, John Collins, N. T. Wright, Christopher Seitz, Stanley Porter, John Webster, and many others.

[@yuniethethird1911]

Lecture starts at 2:40

[@dustinrudisill8962]

Then what about the names given to Adam and Eve's children? Cain Abel and Seth?

[@dustinrudisill8962]

@Sarah Hodgins just seems like a strange point to make. Of course... Babylon collapsed confusing ALL tongues 👅

[@KARMICHAEL11]

the reason we assume chapter 2 a recapitulation is because hebrew storytelling works that way, sooo.... yeah. the creation narrative is 3 loops deep, to my immediate recollection, each with increasing levels of detail, drilling into the important aspects from the larger whole.

[@KARMICHAEL11]

research 'chiastic structure', "palistrophe' and 'ring structure', then read throughout the canon of scripture to see that it pervasive, and ask the Holy Spirit (as you re-read Genesis) does this literary mechanism, that I see throughout the canon, make this book make more sense, or less sense. our understanding of how an account should be is not necessarily the way Moses and his contemporary audience understood a proper account should be. However, it doesn't matter what I say is true, particularly on the internet; I can only point to scholarly research which will inform others to make their own informed decisions and interpretations, hopefully after seeking the Spirit. Doctor Walton may make a few astute points, but that does not proof his entire presentation (i.e. Joe Stalin calling the ocean salty and deep doesn't make him an oceanographer.) We have to be responsible enough to test the whole.

[@KARMICHAEL11]

@N/A I'm going to move past the fact you're absolutely wrong in your accusation to simply state that 4 years ago I did not know as much as I do now, and through sound teaching from OTHER sources, I tentatively hold to a view of humanity's creation that involves more than just Adam and Eve as sole progenitors. I'm sorry I didn't go back and revise all previous incomplete statements I made in youthful ignorance, and I hope someone shows you the same grace when you look back on your own comments in the years to come. May YHWH bless and keep you, sanctifying you as He has mercifully done with me.

[@KARMICHAEL11]

@N/A I don’t mind at all; Michael Heiser’s podcast, Canon Press, Apologia Studios, and tracking with various guests or references they’ve featured.

[@KARMICHAEL11]

last comment, all this about a cultural river... can one not also say that it is part and parcle to our (Dr. Walton's) cultural river to see or even DESIRE to differentiate between cultural rivers? the assumptions that we can even see all of the differences and step out that objectively are quite massive leaps of faith, if not outright breaches in the logic of caution for understanding that he is espousing. what if it was part of the design of Moses' dictation and scripting that all cultural rivers could readily make sense of the logos, which would fit with the theme of our characteristically missional God who bridges those rivers for unity and congruity. Just worth thinking about before jumping in with this school of thought process.

[@evanhadkins5532]

He said we won't ever understand them completely.

[@KARMICHAEL11]

@Sarah Hodgins and on that they would be correct. it's Walton's characterization that I'm raising issue with, not the goal. Dr. Michael Heiser, i think, is a much better source on this topic.

[@mybuckhead]

All scripture should be judged by if it is kill, steal and destroy it is of Satan. If it is love, it is from the Father, Jesus dad. John 10:10. Twist it anyway a person wants to, but this does not change the Bible.

[@websurfer352]

What side was Eve made from Adams left or his right?? I’d appreciate an answer??

[@sampaunovici614]

Man only has a regeneraring rib .....if removed this rib grows back....the bothm of ribcage......right side...

[@michaele5075]

Zechariah 12:1 talks of forming the spirit of man within him. Why would there be a "from the dust of the ground" when the spirit of man was breathed into Adam from God, and didn't come from the ground? The topic is not about the ground aspect of man, but the spirit aspect of man...and doesn't even mention "dust" at all!! Walton is being deceitful in using this verse that doesn't even talk about the physical aspect of man as some kind of proof that no physical aspect of man was ever formed by God. He's trying to trick people intentionally.

[@michaele5075]

@Sarah Hodgins Please. To say evolution has "been proven", is to not even know what science is. 150 years of intellectual inbreeding and apriori definitions to exclude anything but itself is not "proving" anything but that mankind is fallen and does what it can to avoid uncomfortable truths...such as them having a CREATOR as JESUS (as GOD) said Himself. So, Sarah, I don't know if you claim to be a Christian...but no actual Christian insists GOD is stupid and she (or he) is intellectually superior to Him and what HE says. Walton's "creation" is not one in which man is made in God's image...but in the image of animals. Additionally, his "breath of life" isn't any actual breath of life that gives bodily life as again, GOD'S WORD SAYS...but Walton's "breath of life" is some kind of impartation of "spiritual life" or inner illumination to man. What this means is that the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was actually as the GNOSTICS believe...a source of liberation and creation for man to be what he already was only BETTER. Jesus and the cross (which MUST theologically correspond with the death and corruption brought into the world by SIN (and not evolutionary processes as those who believe in Evolution MUST believe), is not simply about some moral dilemma but about LIFE itself. Consciousness...existence. Anyone who supports John Walton's evolutionary Anti-Christ teachings, aren't and CANNOT be actual Christians. REAL Christians follow GOD, not MAN and his fallen ideas. "The idea also causes potential Christians to run far in the other direction." ^Oh, so GOD should change the truth and who HE is to accommodate people who refuse to repent of their fallen and sinful state? Again...such thinking is ANTI-CHRISTIAN and no one who supports it is actually following or even CARING about GOD or the first-century faith as taught by GOD HIMSELF.

[@michaele5075]

@Sarah Hodgins YECism does have its issues...but turning away from the word of God to fallen men for answers is beyond ignorant.

[@1moderntalking1]

J Walton is a bit of a heretic!

[@falconguy4768]

Sad

[@michaele5075]

Genesis 2:5 there was no Adam to till the GROUND Genesis 2:6 mist went up to water the GROUND Genesis 2:7 God forms Adam from the GROUND upon receiving life. Genesis 3:19 Adam (the individual) shall return to the GROUND upon death. ^Proves that Genesis 2 cannot come in a sequence after Genesis 1, because Adam (mankind) must have already been around (Genesis 1:26-27). Also proves that the forming WAS about 'stuff', about biology and origins. Dr. Walton is wrong. Dr. Walton said, "If it were about craftsmanship, it would use clay". Okay, Enuma Elish, another ancient near eastern creation text, has mankind being formed from CLAY and the blood (life) of a god. This parallels Genesis's account, so why is it "modern understanding" to understand Genesis in the same way? Walton is trying to dupe you into thinking that HIS modern interpretation is the way ancient men understood their texts. Don't fall for it.

[@websurfer352]

You seriously mean god putting Adam to sleep(death) means he killed him by cutting him in half??

[@femibabalola4057]

The claim the Bible made: In the Beginning God created the Heaven and the earth, In six literal 24 hour days, and rested on the seventh. 6000 years ago. Do you need a lecture for that?

[@tenmanX]

@Femi Babalola...Yes, unless you speak and understand ancient Hebrew, or Koine Greek, or understand the cultural context of the Ancient Near Eastern peoples to and for whom the books were written.

[@femibabalola4057]

@@tenmanX You don't have to speak ancient Hebrew to understand what the bible is saying in Genesis. You only muddy the waters when you seek to interpolate millions of years.

[@tenmanX]

@@femibabalola4057 Muddy the waters by shining the light of scholarship on Scripture? Remember there is biblical precedence for explaining Scripture to those who can read it in whatever language? Cue in the narrative of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8: 24-40. Have you considered the complicated histories of bringing you those much-cherished English translations? Forgive my presumption in assuming you're Yoruba from your name to make my next point. But that is one language (Yoruba) that rewards a conscientious translator's consideration of contextual, historical, cultural and intentional usage of the language by a Yoruba writer. I suppose the same must apply to the original languages of the texts of Scripture. Brings to mind a long-running joke about the hapless church interpreter who translated Isaiah 40: 1's "Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people, saith your God" to "Comfort yí, comfort yí, èyàn mi ni, ni Olúwa à rẹ́ wí" (This Comfort, this Comfort, is my kin, says your God). 😀

[@femibabalola4057]

@Sarah Hodgins I beg to differ, Madam. Evolution is certainly not a 'fact'. Repeating the mantra millions of times does not make it a 'fact' either. I even wrote a book on it: Evolution:What Dawkins did not tell you". Check it out online. God bless you.

[@michaele5075]

The tree of life was the antidote to WHAT? To being human? Man this guy is clueless.

[@KARMICHAEL11]

I think he's saying it's like the designed fuel for an infinite car; remove the fuel access and the car becomes temporary in it's ability to function as designed. I can't say that he's wrong here, as I arrived at that conclusion solo years ago and have heard others concur since.

[@1moderntalking1]

Antidote to death...also Paul says in Corinthians that flesh is mortal, what is sown is perishable . The tree of life was readily available to man but became forbidden after man sinned.

[@jesusislord3260]

I'm only at 18 mins, and what a lot of rubbish! Just another 'this is my truth, who cares what God's Word says'. Adam means man, God called them both man, then Adam gave his mate an actual name - Eve, which means 'mother of all living'. In the old days your name was the word for the statement about you, ie, she was called Eve because that word meant mother of all living, so it didnt matter what the word was for her name in the language of creation, it was Eve in Hebrew. And no-one knows the language of creation, it might have been Hebrew. Being the mother of all living means there was no 'population' created by God as everybody came from Eve, and sin was passed down through Adam, and all have sinned, so no population as Adam is the father of all living. Genesis 2 is God creating one of each of the kinds of animals He had just created for Adam (maybe in front of Adam) to name. There is a reason we all come from Adam and Eve, so that we are all related, we are all children of Adam and Eve... or brothers and sisters, and Jesus came down the line of the whole of humanity. So using 'populations' of fish and birds is not a great argument.

[@AcadiaDivinityCollege]

I do not get a sense that Dr. Walton is saying this is 'HIs Truth'. Rather he is taking very seriously the authority of Scripture and challenging us to read it correctly. He is not challenging our traditional view of the Bible because he holds it in low regard, rather he is doing so because he holds it in such high regard.

[@evanhadkins5532]

He continually refers to the text and the meaning of the words by reference to scripture.