Understanding John Walton's Cosmic Temple

Part 2: • Understanding John Wal...
@CreationUnfolding
Critical discussion on John Walton's view of Genesis 1
DONATE: www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted...
John Walton is an Old Testament scholar who believes that early Genesis is composed of myths. These myths, according to Walton, are derived from Israel’s ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Walton suggests that the ancient Israelites borrowed bits and pieces from the ANE and composed their own creation myths. Importantly, Walton believes that Genesis 1 has nothing to do with material creation, but should instead be understood only in terms of functionality, where God is assigning already existing material objects with functions. These kinds of reinterpretations of Genesis 1-3 are becoming more popular with William Lane Craig’s mytho-history and John Collins’ proto-history. Dr. Coulson carefully evaluates Walton’s thesis and finds a number of areas that make Walton’s view incoherent with the rest of the Bible.
#cosmictemple #johnWalton #creationism #williamlanecraig #evolution #theology
#creationism #evolution #science #kenham #genesis #genesis1 #theology #christianscience #education #educational #geology #earthscience #physicalsciences #dinosaur
creationunfolding.com/

[@rocketmanshawn]

Idk about all that, but Beale's book The Temple and the Churches Mission has great content on creation being modeled after the heavenly temple. Then the tabernacle and the temple being another model.

[@samuelrodriguez9199]

Where in the world do people come up with these things? Is it so hard to just believe God's word? Wow Thank you for sharing this and breaking it down. God bless

[@bettyblowtorthing3950]

Hoping that your video series will cover the concept of rest in Genesis and the ancient near east, and paralells described with the memphite theology in the popular book "in the beginning...we misunderstood". Thanks!

[@KenJackson_US]

Why is it better to _"pound that like button"_ rather than merely clicking it?

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

I've never heard this before. Thanks for sharing brother. Such a strange theology. 🙏🙏🙏✝️ God bless you

[@Liminalplace1]

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. It's not "strange theology" but actually what the text of Genesis is saying in its ancient context . You'd not be able to read Genesis except for knowledge of ancient Hebrew and likewise ancient Near Eastern culture which scholars are bring to understand the text. All translations are interpretations made by scholars and many of them don't understand the ancient contexts enough. Don't be so quick to reject something you don't understand

[@StandingForTruthMinistries]

Great video. Looking forward to the rest of the series!

[@CreationUnfolding]

Thanks guys! Please make sure to share it on your platforms!

[@YophiSmith]

Glory to God! God my God! How excellent is Thy name! I LITERALLY ran into this topic YESTERDAY, and it disturbed me SO MUCH. I searched your channel for the topic! And now you post the response! Brother!!!!!!! Watching this RIGHT now!

[@CreationUnfolding]

Haha! Praise our great God! I wouldn't worry too much about Walton's view of Genesis. I was not very impressed with the evidence that he was presenting, the most important of which will be discussed in part 2. His use of "bara" is just not very convincing.

[@YophiSmith]

@@CreationUnfolding I didn't like it either. I'm not a proponent of believing The Gap Theory OR this doctrine that God used preexisting materials, but it was disturbing to me because it sounded as if God wasn't the Creator. Even if God used preexisting materials (I don't buy it), He is still the Creator OF those materials, so the universe HAD to be ex nihilo. God bless you for making this! I speak prayers over you and your channel, brother

[@bramvandenheuvel4049]

I can recommend Walton's book Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. A thorough academic book about methodology and how to meaningfully compare ANE texts with the Bible. It shows all the different ways in which his popular work is both careless and irresponsible. He has neither carefully studied the ANE texts in their contexts, nor thoroughly exegeted the Bible, nor properly justified any comparison (I can also recommend some articles by William Hallo and Lawson Younger which I used for the methodology of my Ph.D.). Additionally, one of the main pillars of his argument regarding the meaning of bara is that both the ANE and the ancient Hebrews had no concept for "nothing" other than chaos. This point is firmly stated and repeated, but never even close to proven from any text. My personal studies into bara for example have not been able to disprove the concept of nothingness, nor do I believe that all creation myths from the ANE assume a preexisting chaos at all (some seem to have it, some are silent on this matter, some start with a present, orderly world). Oh, and finally, the connections he finds between the tabernacle and temple on the one hand and Genesis 1 and especially 2-3 on the other hand are real. But the influence is the reverse: the temple and tabernacle are patterned after Eden and creation, the creation and garden narratives aren't patterned after the temple/tabernacle.

[@CreationUnfolding]

Thanks Bram, yes, I agree that his temple theme has warrant, as does the idea of function in the creation account. But of course, this goes without saying. If you are going to create something, it is because it's final form has purpose. An idea that goes all the way back to Aristotle. So, this is a no brainer. The problem is that Walton wants to then make any kind of material connection disappear.

[@MrWholphin]

The desperate and convoluted stuff people come up with to avoid what the text says.

[@Garthinyus]

There's plenty of evidence for a young creation account. No value in trying to find an answer to an unnecessary question.

[@arnohag1]

So sad that a person puts their take on God's creation.

[@Liminalplace1]

With due respect WLC cannot read Ancient Near Eastern texts not understands Cultural Anthropology.(I'm a Cultural Anthropologist)So his objection doesn't work. The burden is upon those who say ANE texts are concerned with material origins. So none of your objections question Waltons proposition. You are still trying to modernize the text. Walton himself has SINCE writing Genesis One, dropped his "assigning functions" terminology and uses creating "ORDER" instead which fits Proverbs wisdom theme. Reading the comments here makes me wonder if it was better not to make English translations available to the public, as everyone has an opinion WITHOUT an understanding of the ANCIENT text,, which is what Genesis is. It was never written in English and to a modern culture. A bit of humility is needed and reliance upon Hebrew scholars and cultural experts is needed. I can explain where you have misunderstood things. Here is another major scholar. kzbin.inforyRkq1Cqy-k?si=LuA_S-JGQ5fUpP7o

[@CreationUnfolding]

Hi there, I appreciate your comments. There is a part 2 and 3, although I do not in any way think they will convince you. As for me, I've deeply looked into Walton's view and it is just not coherent. I am not convinced in the slightest. Give it 10 years and I perceive it will end up on the scrapheap of Genesis reinterpretations. But thank you.

[@Liminalplace1]

@@CreationUnfolding kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJK1mXSJd7GgrJIsi=RT9OK5oydrxUXG46 In this interview John Walton clarifies bara as "God ordering" more than giving function. And somewhat answers your approach. Timestamp 34:14 The issue is what the author intended to convey to their original audience. It's not what God did or what actually occured or the reality. Behind Waltons approach is that scripture is a revelation of God and his plans and purposes, not a revelation of the cosmos or science or human psychology. That he deals with as a distinction between "reference" and "affirmation". It's that area where your approach confounds the two or fails to make that distinction. So essentially you are accepting as revelation what the scripture "references" along with what it "affirms". Walton's methodology attempts to distinguish them and take only what the scripture "affirms" as revelation. If you like the content of a 🎁, not it's wrapping.(My illustration). What id suggest you do is obtain Walton's recent book "Wisdom for Faithful Reading" and work thru his methodology and compare it to your own implicit methodology or WLC"s or others..and see if Walton is "generally" consistent with his own methodology. Id suggest he is and the methodology is thorough. Others might have another methodology and that'd fine

[@martin2289]

The Bible is still just a load of nonsense, anyway you slice it.

[@KenJackson_US]

Where can you find salvation apart from Christ the Lord?

[@martin2289]

@@KenJackson_US "Salvation" from what, exactly?

[@KenJackson_US]

@@martin2289 [wrongfully deleted]

[@martin2289]

@@KenJackson_US What does that mean?

[@KenJackson_US]

@@martin2289 It means when I tell the truth, KZbin deletes it.

[@saintsidiots]

That was poorly done, I hope your scientific explanations are better. You oversimplified Walton's thesis overemphasized the critiques and brought up his point (which is correct) about the Hebrew bara and then didn't discuss it. Walton like most biblical scholars correctly understand that Genesis 1 isn't a literal history.

[@CreationUnfolding]

Hi there, I appreciate your feedback. As I said in the video, I will discuss his use of bara in part 2. I can only fit so much into a single video. Yes, you are correct, most biblical scholars do not accept the historicity of Genesis, but did you know that most biblical scholars also completely reject Walton's interpretation of Genesis? So, do you see that it really does not matter where the "popular" vote goes.