I actually was considering to becoming a scientist before the Lord saved me, and was well read and versed in so called Theistic and Darwinism evolution, and just cannot accept that either view does justice to the scriptures!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Students at Wheaton start Young Earth Club, show Young Earth film to the dismay of faculty
- Thread starter Calminian
- Start date
Walton, though, takes things a step further and posits that the Bible really does communicate false ancient cosmologies to accommodate the audience of that time. And he does reimagine Adam and Eve as historical figures, but not the mother and father of all mankind.
Once you lose the view on full inspiration of the scriptures, than all hope for proper theology pretty much is gone by the wayside!
Yeah, non-concordists are strange, but ever-increasing in number. They seem to be the main faction, now, in biologos circles.
Here is someone who actually gets it right!
https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/luther-on-evolution/
When I asked if you had read him more broadly than just the five pages on this thread, you posted this.
It looks like you are making the classic mistake of letting someone else think for you. Why is the world would you want to simply trust a scathing review without checking things out for yourself? The review you posted has tremendous value IF you do you own investigation and then carefully consider the reviewers critique's in light of what you have read. Otherwise, you really don't know if the fine folks at the creation.com site are telling the truth or not. If you ONLY listen to people who only affirm your interpretation of scripture (if it was ever truly yours in the first place), you are not being a faithful student of scripture and being a poor disciple of Jesus. A good disciple asks questions and challenges ideas so he or she can be convinced in his or her own mind without having to run to another authority to know what to do.
So when you criticized Walton, you are doing that out of ignorance. Why in the world should that opinion matter to me or anyone else?
So I think the answer to my question is no, you haven't read his work.
It looks like you are making the classic mistake of letting someone else think for you. Why is the world would you want to simply trust a scathing review without checking things out for yourself? The review you posted has tremendous value IF you do you own investigation and then carefully consider the reviewers critique's in light of what you have read. Otherwise, you really don't know if the fine folks at the creation.com site are telling the truth or not. If you ONLY listen to people who only affirm your interpretation of scripture (if it was ever truly yours in the first place), you are not being a faithful student of scripture and being a poor disciple of Jesus. A good disciple asks questions and challenges ideas so he or she can be convinced in his or her own mind without having to run to another authority to know what to do.
So when you criticized Walton, you are doing that out of ignorance. Why in the world should that opinion matter to me or anyone else?
Why did you not pursue science? There is no contradiction between being a scientist and being a Christian?
I don't mean this in an insulting way, but you haven't really demonstrated much personal knowledge of the scriptures in reference to these issues in our conversation. In fact, you tend to avoid discussing the scriptures except to throw out the standard proof-texts (which really are not what you claim they are).
Last edited:
There is no conflict between science that acknowledges God exists. and that he created and originated life, and that Mankind was his crowning jewel, ONLY creation in His own image. Trying to blend Evolution, false views on inspiration, and trying to force mythology into the scriptures is when trouble begins!
Did the person who critiqued his book actually misquote anything? And from what I have read on him, and in some of his works, he does indeed see OT scriptures to be on par with other ancient religious books, and does not acknowledge the full inspiration of scripture, and denies genesis as being actually historical fact.
I have not read Walton's works for myself - yet, but I shouldn't let a review from a source heavily biased against him to decided whether or not I check into his work.
Regarding the claim that he "does not acknowledge the full inspiration of scripture," do you have a citation from his writings that makes that statement, or something to that effect?
The question of whether or not God exists is outside of the realm of science, so claims for or against God on the basis of "science" are false.
You will be happy to know that I am not doing any of the things you list.
His equating the historical myths of the ancient cultures around Israel as being also valid, or more precisely, he does not acknowledge that the OT scriptures were with mistakes/errors within them.
And how is pointing out his flaws means the reviewer was 'heavily biased?"
You claim that genesis is inspired myth to us, and that there was not a man made by special creation of god, correct?
So why are many scientists making a "faith choice" to disregard the existence of God then? They are using science to "disprove" God existing?
Definitely does not fit The Scriptures.
The problem is that many are trying to find it in the Bible though.
I would be stunned if he took the position that you have described since it would show profound ignorance of the texts.
Where did you get that idea about Walton’s position? The review you posted says nothing of it? Please provide a clear reference or retract your assertion.
Let’s be clear, I don’t think ANY biblical scholar claims that the ancient cosmologies of the ancient world around Israel are “also valid.” There are huge differences between all of them, even though there is a similarity of structure, questions and concepts that everyone is working with. That is to be expected.
I have not personally read any of Walton’s books, but I have seen him cited approvingly in books that discuss the early Middle Eastern cosmologies. If he fundamentally disagree with the premise of the writer I was reading (Scot McKnight, for instance), I am confident that he would have been called out on it.
What does that have to do with our topic? The scriptures are reliable, both of us understand that, but the focus on inerrancy severely undermined the validity of the review. For instance, the reviewer took issue with Walton pointing out that we don’t actually think with our intestines and used that as evidence that Walton has a low view of scripture. Apparently the review assumes that his readers are biblically illiterate if he thinks that is a compelling point. Both the Old and New Testament describe the human bowels as the seat of affection and will. For instance:
Philippians 1:8 NASB
For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection [σπλάγχνοις, which is literally, “bowels”] of Christ Jesus.
Philippians 1:8 KJV
For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.
The reviewer is obviously defending a position, and that skews his ability to actually agree with valid points.
I affirm that Genesis I’m fully inspired and reliable and that The creation narratives are written to the ancient Middle Eastern culture in the forms in which they communicated (true myth).
I affirm that humankind (and all loving and non-living things) were created by God with His direct interaction. God also created life in such a way that it unfolds in a certain direction and that He nurtures and interacts with His creation. And at some point, God made humankind in His own image, and that was a special act of creation with elements that were already created.
That’s a complex question that has no single answer. It is part of the bigger question as to why most people choose to disregard the existence of God. Another factor is that much of Christianity has been antagonistic toward science and has falsely declared as an eternal truth that one cannot believe science AND scripture at the same time.
Anyone who claims they can disprove the existence of God (or even the need for God) on the basis of science is either self-deceived, been deceived by popular culture, or is dishonest.
Some people, even Christians, think that the battle for God’s existence is on the field of evolution. But that’s simply muddy and incomplete thinking. Evolution depends upon the existence of material reality, certain conditions, certain basic particles and elements, and (at least) a primitive form of life as a beginning. If evolution is predicated on all of those things, there must exist a Creator or else the physical universe itself must be divine in its self-sustaining nature.
As far as we can observe, matter comes from matter, so at one point going back in time through the Big Bang, there was a time when matter came into existence from something other than itself — we can use the word spirit here, or perhaps Spirit, to express this non-physical reality.
So the idea that someone can use evolution or even “science” to claim there is no God has not really understood the fundamental premises of the question.
The Bible doesn’t deal with evolution. It was not intended to address that question.
It does indirectly, as it affirms all life was created by God, after its own kind, and that Mankind was a special creation of God!