John Walton: Interpreting the Creation Story

Download the PDF study guide:

The church has always had a dynamic relationship with science. While some of the earliest church fathers allowed for interpretive license when it came to biblical texts, later representatives of the church were rather firm in their objections to new scientific theories and their implications for biblical interpretation. Nonetheless, the earliest innovators in modern science, including Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, were committed Christians. They believed that their Christian faith provided fertile ground for exploring the natural world. The question that remains for the church then, is how appropriate texts that on the surface appear to teach a particular account of creation. Does science become subservient to a theological text?

[wisdomdesignedlife]

Wow everything that Tim Mackie tells about "saved space" and Dr. Craig's "mythohistory" lines up with this "home story". This is great stuff.

[DougOvermyer]

Good summary of the paradigm needed to read the origin stories in the Bible. Dr. Walton's "Genesis is Ancient Cosmology" is really great. The summary is "The Lost World of Genesis One." Temple cosmology explains so much of what God's plan has always been and continues to be regarding the Kingdom of God.

[spkidd]

I first heard about John Walton through Francis Collins who regards Walton’s view highly. So I started reading Wharton’s books. You can’t digest his explanation through a 7 minute video. I agree with Francis Collins (Head of NIH) that Walton provides the best explanation on the difficult events in the Old Testament.

[Joelthinker]

Wow it's so crazy and sad how a large percentage of these comments didn't even come close to grasping the message in this video

[P.H.]

Science proves GOD, because the creation is in order and can be measured showing design.

[kengorogoto]

science is the most elementary level of meaning, so things belong to higher stages cannot be explained by science

[Orthodoxy.Memorize.Scripture]

Its definitely an interesting way to understand Genesis1. The ancients wouldn't have thought of it from a scientific standpoint. Ok. But neither is it a parable, a figurative story to communicate some truth. It can be both a real story with 24 hour days and a mature creation. The 7 day creation story (24 hour days) parallels our 7 days of the week. These 7 days may not be the important thing, but it doesnt mean they aren't 24 hour days.

[Floridacoastwriter]

I wish I had a dollar for every person I've talked to who absolutely finds Walton's views of Genesis way 'off the mark.' Many have complained his presuppositions are weak, dubious and highly debatable. He appears to be trying to add metaphysical philosophy to biblical theology and the mix is a disaster! His 'Lost' books are just that; lost in a mire of confusion and contradiction.

[timothysoh]

How much latitude does God have when He authored the first two chapters of Genesis? Does He plant seed ideas that would transcend space and time? As with Gen. 3:15, readers later in time would appreciate more depth of meaning than the original readers. The bruising of the heel is really literal and not figurative. Human scholarship tend to minimize divine authorship.

[mrhickswife]

Gen 1 is building account and Gen 2 is home story. Don't consider science (man's understanding!) as a measure on how to understand the world the Lord created - take His understanding and open your eyes!

[kentrtrimoredjo]

What god give jezus and moses, the wonders, miracle or gift, the indonesian java people know about it and also have it to.

[henghistbluetooth]

So: The key to understanding Genesis is not to actually read the words but rather create a story in your own mind and then make the words fit your preconception? I’m always reminded of the observation with videos like this: ‘if god were real there would be no need for apologists for everything would be absolutely clear, absolutely all of the time to all people. Anything less is simply playing favourites’.

[yveclark]

If his analogy of his own home story reflected what we have here I would be very surprised. Would he have told people things that actually happened or pretended to people that he had created it a different way? I suspect he would have been factual.
What we have here in Gen 1-3 addresses both the issue of how the world got here and the theological ones. One of those is fundamental to the Gospel. Death and sin began with Adam. The Gospel is presented as the undoing of that.
How would that work with evolution? Death was very much at work in the evolution hypothesis. Suffering was very evident.
I cannot see that secular science has anything to offer the believer but to remove the foundation of his faith.
There are other ways to view the evidence that are consistent with Genesis 1 and which can be supported by science.

[logicalcomrade]

I thought seedbed was better than this. If you want to promote old earth creationism, I think your wrong, but do it through the literary framework interpretation instead of whatever this is. At least literary framework interpretation is something that is used elsewhere in the Bible, book of Revelation (kind of).

[dr.deverylejones]

In Genesis 1 God is specking to us Mankind saying He created this Place/Universe & Earth to exist for us Mankind. "And God Said He made The Earth for was Without (FORM & VOID) for Man on earth this mean God created the Earth (TO BE FORM). For we can see God created a process of (Time, Growth, Development of Change) on earth & of ALL Things on earth called Evolution God made exist & existed on Earth. So God is Not saying in Genesis 1 He created this earth in 1 to 7 days. For God is specking to Early Mankind on earth (How to Measure on earth) by teaching Mankind (WHAT A DAY IS). For teaches Man How to count days in Name Number Order of 1 to 7 days & now Mankind can Measure Time by 1 to 7 days. So God tell HIS-STORY to Mankind What Things you see I God made was told (CHRONOLOIGALLY) to Man in 1 to 7 days the Time Mankind can Measure Time by then. For God know More Name Numbers days More Numbers comes then Shall MATH & More to Mankind for was God in Genesis 1 teaching early Mankind (WHAT A DAY IS). For is the Correct interpretation of Genesis 1.

[timschlum]

You mentioned Genesis not being a ‘science book.’ That’s true, but what the Bible says in the realm of science isn’t false (inerrancy). Also, I’m not sure it’s fair to toss out a literal 7 day creation because “Genesis is not a science book.” Help me understand more, please.

[GDG-gorthodoxy]

The home and house story illustration is a poor excuse or mask for JW’s unbelief. God didn’t ask the Israelites “do you want to hear the house story or the home story?” The story was 100% the choice of the Storyteller. And if God said He did it in 6 days, then it’s 6 days. Stop trying to outsmart God, or ascribe deception to God or accommodate atheists. It’s the devil who sows doubt… “did God really mean 6 days? Believe God or the liar from the beginning? Calling John Walton to repentance and true faith.

[PhillipCastaneda]

Love the video, thank you for your contribution to theology, linguistics, and understanding of the ancient world where and when this book was written.

My comments is more to your language of science and theology. I understand theology to be a science and would characterize the Genesis story as reflecting theological origins, but not true biological or cosmological origins.

I believe our language perpetuates a false (Cartesian?) split between the disciplines and we should not stipulate theology as different from and therefore not science.

Thoughts?

[Species-rjsi]

I am a scientist (in the field of acoustics and radio electronics). There are two things I know:
1. Properly understood, the Bible is the best science book ever published.
2. This guy is full of you-know-what.

[AndrewGulickTrueVitalityPlus]

What a lot of dancing around in order to fit in with the modern changing ethics and morality. the claims of Genesis are very clear as to what it says and means. it doesn't go against science since, God Himself created how everything in science is to work. There is no reason to dance around to fit in with society's whims.