More from Walton

One of the reasons for my disenchantment with the literal six-day-creation reading of Genesis 1 is the question of the earth’s age. I always had trouble reconciling young-earth proposals with the overwhelming flood of scientific opinion saying the earth was very old (though this certainly does not mean I believe everything scientists propose). Walton’s view on the matter is one I am convinced is right (at least until I see compelling evidence to the contrary). He says,

“The point is not that the biblical text therefore supports an old earth, but simply that there is no biblical position on the age of the earth. If it were to turn out that the earth is young, so be it. But most people who seek to defend a young-earth view do so because they believe that the Bible obligates them to such a defense. I admire the fact that believers are willing to take unpopular positions and investigate all sorts of alternatives in an attempt to defend the reputation of the biblical text. But if the biblical text does not demand a young earth there would be little impetus or evidence to offer such a suggestion.” – p. 95

Αυτω η δοξα,


11 thoughts on “More from Walton

  1. Jason, I start the book on Monday.

    Personally, I am leaning to the idea that by applying Science to Genesis 1-3, we are ignoring some major theological points. I look forward to your thoughts as well.

  2. Likewise (thoughts on the book, that is). Which points specifically? I am interested in fleshing out how this understanding of Genesis 1 (functional) plays out in other aspects of my theology.

  3. Well, what if we are missing a bigger picture than what a literal understanding would allow?

    Such as what if the Creation account isn’t concerned about the how, but the Who and the Why? If Creationism is such a big deal, then why do we not see it reiterated in the NT?

    Jason, feel free to email me if you want to discuss this, as I have a feeling I might come under fire if I start to question 6 literal days.

    1. I think I am on the same train of thought. Walton argues that Genesis 1 isn’t concerned with material creation, but functional. I am convinced that Genesis 1 is not concerned with the how, but with the Who and Why.

      I sympathize with your concern–the literal six-days is sacred ground!

      1. It has only been so for a few centuries at most, I believe. It seems that with the extreme liberalism in biblical studies, their was an extreme conservative reaction – towards fundamentalism.

        I posted the question on Facebook a while ago have received a few angry emails over it. Cannot wait until I start posting full time on it.

  4. I look forward to your posts! You’re certainly right about the reaction to such a view, though this is a recent change for me. I can just hear it now–“You don’t believe that God created the cosmos in 6 days??? You’ve gone liberal!”

  5. Jason, it’s an excellent book and I shouldn’t worry about being charged with going liberal…you will find you will start having far more edifying conversations with atheists!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s