I’ve got my order in at Amazon.

just when I told my husband that I wasn’t going to buy any more books!

O, Barb, we don’t “buy” books. We “acquire” them.

Hmm…another book. Sounds great!!

.
John did a magnificent job in facilitating and teaching the OT part of the Bible in 90 Days video series.

Scot and Barb: We don’t “acquire” them either . . . we “invest” in them!

oh – perfect. My library is not an expense or a luxury – it is an investment. Now I know what to say when the next Amazon box shows up…

I don’t generally agree with RJS on this topic, but I’m certainly open to it. In fact, I have 2 books at home on loan from the library, “Saving Darwin” by Giberson and “Language of God” by Collins.
I’ve also watched/listened to lectures by Lamoureux.
What I find important about this discussion is not getting everyone to except the Darwinian theory of evolution, but to not understand that it’s possible to be both a Christian and to accept it. That is, I’m interested in the pastoral applications of it (I’m not a pastor).
The book by Walton looks like a good resource. I hear his NIV Application commentary on Genesis is good also.

I am a product of John Walton’s fervent passion for the Hebrew Bible. I took him for every class I could when I was a lowly Moody Bible Institute undergrad. He gave out C’s like candy and A’s like the rarest diamonds. I had him for about ten courses during my time and even made a C (hmph!) in Hebrew class with him. Yet my experience learning under him was nothing less than an intellectual awakening.
Walton’s knowledge of Near Eastern texts is superb. His reasoning ability is top-notch (except when he disagrees with me).
I am glad you will be doing this. Guess I’d better order my copy now.
Derek Leman

It’s interesting how much Walton has really come out in favor of evolution without really saying it. Can you believe in evolution (including homo sapien’s common descent from chimps at Wheaton now? I thought that belief wasn’t permitted)
Interestingly enough, I find Walton’s arguments about function and that these days were actually literal not to be that strong. I actually think the analogical day view or framework view works a lot better with genesis than what Walton proposes although I haven’t read his new book (I read his commentary on Genesis). I read a blog somewhere, though I don’t remember now, where they say that the most obvious answer is that God gave these things function AND created them. It doesn’t saw HOW or when or even in what order, but it does say that he created them. I also don’t see it necessary to accept his view of the firmament. I think Beale might actually have a better argument on this stuff than Walton/Seely/Lemoreax. My view as of now is something like: The author of genesis may or may not have thought that there was a solid firmament, but his use of the firmament in Genesis 1 has nothing to do with this. Instead, it is simply a part of the roof or what have you of the metaphorical cosmic temple that God builds. It is where God hangs the sun and moon from.
In a similar way, the author of Genesis probably wouldn’t care if someone told him, “hey, you know that the moon isn’t really a light at all, it just looks like it is because of the light from the sun.”
He’d probably say, “Oh, well my purpose in genesis was simply to describe these in a metaphorical way as having “dominion” and “ruling” over the day and night. I didn’t care whether the moon was really a light or not. That was simply the easiest description at the time. I wasn’t saying that it was actually giving off light or not.” So I would actually lean closer to Beale/Kline/John Collins on these things.
I do accept common descent and there is very little doubt in me that it’s true. My whole solution to the Adam and Eve problem is a bit “new” but I think it works, and I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve. I’d be interested to see what Walton wants to do with Adam and Eve. I’m pretty sure he has to believe they existed if he teaches at Wheaton. : )

Amazon is sending my copy. I look forward to following the comments on this blog. By the way, I’ve really enjoyed reading some of the stuff that RJS puts up on faith and science.