IVP recently published John Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Walton brings ancient near-Eastern (ANE) cultural and linguistic parallels to bear on the text of Genesis chapter 1. I found the book both fascinating and challenging. His method of developing his argument proposition by proposition, kept the argument clear, comprehensible and concise. Ultimately, I found it quite convincing. I will be reviewing that book on my site in the near future.
Of course, a big sacred cow has been tipped in this book. Against the very real attacks by atheistic evolutionists, Christians in general have united around a Creationist perspective that upholds a literal, six-day, young earth, non-evolutionary model of the origins of the earth and all life. Over the last few decades, a steady stream of scientific analyses of Scripture have hit the shelves of Christian bookstores. If you stop to think about this from a wider perspective, you would have to think that many church leaders of old would be amazed at the degree of scientific specificity that modern creationists find in the pages of Scripture. It should be obvious that Scripture wasn’t written to answer every question in our science books.
I am currently exploring this issue in more depth and looking to Scripture for what perspective to have on this issue. John Piper’s thoughts on the matter are similar to mine at present. In a recent online Ask Pastor John event, (the answer is not yet posted on their site), Piper says he leans toward Sailhammer’s view (as explained in the above link). After reading Walton (as well as G.K. Beale), I agree. I don’t think the issue has to be as divisive as some make it out to be.
Everyone doesn’t agree that such matters should be open to such variation, however. Vern Poythress, who I highly respect, recently offered a decidedly negative assessment to Walton’s book in World magazine. His review, obviously bound by space constraints, did not adequately explain Walton’s position. It misrepresented the book. Now, John Walton has responded to that review. Both Poythress’ assessment of the book, and Walton’s rejoinder are short reads and will provide a peek into the nature of the debate (and of course, the book). I encourage you to take the time to read both articles, and let me know what your thoughts are.
Vern Poythress: Walton has read Genesis with a false contrast between material and functional, and with equivocal meanings for the two terms. As a result, he artificially detaches Genesis 1 from questions of physical appearance and produces an unsustainable interpretation…. In short, Walton’s book has mixed value. Positive insights about the practical focus of Genesis 1 mix with some unsound claims. (read the entire review)
John Walton: I have read a few other reviews of the Lost World of Genesis One by scholars who had reservations about my theory. They were balanced, understood my position well, interacted with my ideas and evidence in depth, and offered assessment of aspects of the theory as they raised important questions. These are much appreciated. Dr. Poythress is certainly capable of offering such a review, but this effort fell far short of that helpful ideal. In the process I believe he did a disservice to me, to his readers, and to the discussion. (read the entire response)
Please feel free to share your thoughts on this in the comments below!
You can purchase the book at Amazon.com or Westminster Bookstore, or direct from IVP. Westminster Bookstore has a .PDF excerpt available as well on the book page.
When I first posted “
Within fundamentalism, as in other areas of Christianity no doubt, there is quite a bit of confusion over fighting sin. The thinking goes like this: if we 