It would be an exercise in futility and it would not change reality.
John Walton is a turkeyâŚeven Dr William Craig (and old earth proponent) doesnt agree with Walton idea that the Genesis account is that of functional creation.
Walton attempts to use the restaurant from a factory analogy to explain that the restaurant did not actually come into being until the day it openedâŚdespite the fact the factory building was always thereâŚits a ridiculous argument and Craig dispatches it over the fence easily.
As Craig explains, Walton does not show that the text of Genesis 1 exclusively describes a functional creation narrative.
even Walton himself statesâŚâwhy cant it be material?ââŚhe himself knows full well that he isnt actually using supported referencing, rather he is simply trying to conjur up an alternative explaination that suits his world view. Ie time and space are not material, therefore we can treat the rest of the narrative allegorically⌠Its an absurd line of thinking. Lets just ignore what the bible writers have stated and just pretend they meant something else because that suits our modern day world view. Its ridiculous and deeply flawed. For one thing, its ignorant of a large amount of connected biblical theologyâŚmost of which is self evident. You cannot simply ignore self evident biblical theologyâŚthats nothing short of playing a game of pretend.
Someone should ask Walton to explain why Christ died physically on the cross as atonement for sin in fulfillment of 2000+ years of OT sacrificial system (Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death) that Adam was forewarned about, was merely spiritual?
It also does not explain why the second coming is a physical event either.
You have chosen a pathetic source and im not concerned by itâŚits actually indicative of a source so bad, it strengthens my argument rather than detracting from it.
@Dale: Who says sin doesnât pay?
2 Likes
Youâve set up the flimsiest of straw men here by caricaturing evolution as a theory that would purport to explain every aspect of all human experience. Which, of course, it isnât. Then you go on to show how ridiculous your straw man is. Which, of course, it is. But all youâve accomplished is to show you apparently donât understand even the basics of evolution, much less hope to critique or refute it in any way.
2 Likes
- Itâs almost a miracle in way, suggesting the possibility that God can make rocks that talk.
Is the purpose of Christianity scientfic or philosophical?
Why do you throw out the ridiculous claimâŚi dont understand evolution? Why should i even careâŚim interested in knowing God, not trying to rarionalise why a corrupt world appears older than what God tells us it is.
Its a simple equationâŚif i follow the bibl and im wrong, i endup the same as an atheist, but if im right, the atheist is a fool and loses everything. Same goes for TEismâŚit openly denies that Christâs physical suffering and physical death on the cross is atonement for sin.
The bible very specifically tells us, sin brought physical suffering and physical death to this worldâŚthat is at odds with and is a huge problem for evolutionary based theology.
Even the second coming is a physical event to finally reverse the wages of sinâŚits not an allegory.
The ID movement is a self-proclaimed âbig tentâ. As such, it includes a wide range of claims. Actually, I strongly suspect that, although ID is often promoted by Christian organizations, they donât know what god is meant by in ID. Jonathan Wells is prominent in the ID movement and is ordained in the Unification Church - he claims that Rev. Moon, not Jesus, is the true messiah. He claims that he can say that heâs a Christian because Christianity is about opposing evolution, not about Christ. As a member of the Unification Church, Wells strongly disagrees with the âfree loveâ position of the Raelian ID advocates, who claim that Jesus, like âRaelâ, was in touch with the secret wisdom of the aliens who created humans through cloning. Dembski and other ID advocates have run into difficulties from supporters and opponents who think they are just a fancy name for young-earth creationism.
Michael Denton currently identifies evolution as an example of design, not opposed to it. ID actually is all over the map on many issues. If they said âhe thinks this, they think that, and I have another idea, but we all get alongâ, that could be a good gateway to discussion. Regrettably, they tend to bill themselves as supporting the perceived position of the audience rather than accurately representing the range of views. It would be perfectly reasonable for someone to say âI support ID but donât agree with the Raeliansâ, for example. But trying to simultaneously claim to be Christian apologists and scientists with no concern for theological or philosophical questions is problematic.
7 Likes
This is a misrepresentation of Waltonâs views. He claims to be reading the text literally. Strangely enough, you also claim to be reading it literally.
Youâve made your case as far as Iâm concerned. That info about Jonathan Wells, the Moonie, and the Unification Churchâs anti-evolution stance is fascinating.
4 Likes
Walton has studied the ancient worldviews and the ancient Hebrew, and unlike YECists doesnât try to impose a modern worldview on an ancient text.
And he doesnât treat any of it allegorically. You seem to have a fascination with that word that blinds you to actual scholarship; that you think Walton is treating anything allegorically indicates that you havenât paid attention. He is doing what YECists totally fail to do: treating the text on its own merits as the ancient literature it is and seeking to understand what it meant to the original audience.
= - = + = - = â = - = + = - =
And given that Dr. Walton has a PhD in Hebrew itâs not hard to decide whoâs actually reading the text.
3 Likes
The scriptures donât tell us an age for the earth, or for the universe. The idea that it does comes from a total failure to understand the ancient literature that the opening chapters of Genesis is.
Iâve noted before that some Hebrew scholars long ago purely on the basis of the Hebrew concluded that the first chapter of Genesis indicates that the universe is ancient beyond comprehension and the earth itself is ancient beyond counting. Since that conclusion rested on the text itself, it is far more likely to be correct than is YEC idolatry.
4 Likes
Okay, that is pure nonsense and a gross lie.
YECism requires believing lies, but this one is beyond the pale. You need to repent and to apologize to all the TE proponents here.
3 Likes
- Because youâre running very close to No Interest Value, so low in fact youâre pretty much like a squeaky sign in the wind.
1 Like
Which goes to show that âreading it literallyâ is empty rhetoric to lend support to a particular interpretation.
At least Walton explains what he means when he uses the term.
2 Likes
My answer to your very fair question: Does God Guide Evolution? - Article - BioLogos
4 Likes
Here we canât help wading into the waters of divine action, and it must be admitted that these waters get metaphysically deep very quickly. We devoted a lengthy series to the topic a while back, with leading thinkers exploring its nuances.
That link in the article will result in a 404 error (as will it here ; - ), but this appears to be the current one:
Thanks. Fix request submitted.
1 Like
The major difference being that Walton reads it literally in the Hebrew while YECs read it literally as though it was a friendâs great-grandfatherâs diary of events he witnessed and recorded in English.
2 Likes