We at the Jesus Creed blog, both Scot and RJS, have already invited one and all to enter into a conversation and discussion about John Walton's (professor at Wheaton) new book, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Today is our first day. We anticipate 18 posts, one for each chapter...Post one concerns this claim by Walton: "Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology."
What happens to Genesis 1 and the faith-science debate when Genesis 1 is seen as ancient cosmology? Do you find a struggle at your local church or in your own mind with the claim that Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology?
Seems fair enough -- and once you keep this point in your head things begin to change. The exciting thing for me about Walton's book is that he's holding firm to a text in historical context and not shying away from building theology -- the doctrine of Scripture, the doctrine of creation, etc - on the basis of that text in historical context. Furthermore, he's unafraid to speak into the mess that evangelicals got themselves entangled into when it comes to creation science. Walton is asking one simple question: What did this text mean in its context? (He's got a "that was then but this is now" approach.)
Walton argues Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology ... Ancient Israelites "did not know the stars were suns; they did not know that earth was spherical.... They believed that the sky was material (not vaporous..." (16). Most importantly, "And God did not think it important to revise their thinking" (16).
The approach of concordism, which tries to show that Genesis 1 fits modern science, runs into two problems: (1) we cannot translate their ancient cosmology into our cosmology for we will then be trying to make it say things it didn't say and (2) it assumes that we should read Genesis 1 against modern science, but which modern science? Science is always shifting. He makes this powerful claim on p. 19: "There is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture."
"God communicated his revelation to his immediate audience terms they understood" (17). Cosmic geography, which is what Genesis 1 is about, is "culturally relative" (18). He uses the example of Israelites thinking people thought with their "intestines" and not just "mind."
The best way to approach Scripture then is "We must take the text on its own terms -- it is not written to us" (21). "Its message transcends the culture in which it originated, but the form in which the message was imbedded was fully permeated by the ancient culture" (21).
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Bob (@47), do you think your congregation hold the YEC position because if they doubt even the slightest word in the Bible, then it could open a flood gate of doubt that they might not be able to cope with? I personally have no problem believing that Gen 1-3 is a myth, or fable, told to portray a concept not a fact, but I understand the desire to believe everything because then you don't need to think about anything.
It seems to me that an issue often overlooked has to do with Paul's use of Genesis 3 in Romans 5. According to Gen 3, sin is the result of Adam AND Eve doing their own thing - not just Adam. Perhaps, then, a little more caution is warranted before Rom 5 is used as the smoking gun, which "proves" that a literal interpretation of Gen 3 is the correct one. I'm not suggesting that Paul did not believe Adam was not a historical individual (I think he probably did), just that, given Paul's “omit-some-detail-to-make-a-contrast” reading of Gen 3 in Rom 5, maybe it’s not so unthinkable for God to have worked in a similar manner in Genesis (i.e., by omitting what would have been incomprehensible scientific theories, etc.)
#51 Matt
I just came back here to make this very point, realizing I had intended to include it in #49 ... and then here is your post. Thanks.
In Romans 5 it is Adam who led us into sin but in 1 Timothy 2 it appears to be Eve. Is Paul confused? No. It is does not appear to me he is deducing a theology from precise examination historical events. He is drawing on the stock stories of the community to reinforce his teaching and his teaching, not the teaching devices, are the issue.
Matt (51), the Apostle Paul was rabbinically training and also well versed in Greek and Roman Philosophy. Truly God's perfect apologist for the Early Church! In Tarsus there was a philosophy academy that Seneca regarded as better than those in Athens. We don't know that Paul attended there, but he certainly would have heard the public dialogues and become familiar with the philosophical debates of his day.
1 Corinthians 15:20ff and Romans 5:12ff don’t deal directly with Paul’s soteriology, but with Paul’s platonic approach of Christology. The first man, Adam, is imperfect but the second Man, Jesus Christ, is perfect, the true Form of humanity. God made humans in God’s image and likeness, but sin marred that image so that the first is imperfect. In Platonism types are always imperfect but point to that true Form which is Perfect. Paul is using Platonism to explain Jesus Christ to Corinthians and Romans who would have been familiar with this platonic way of thinking. He wants them to see the pattern of revelation.
Using this same approach we are able to tease out the pattern of revelation about Jesus Christ not only in reference to Adam, but also in reference to other biblical figures such as Abraham, Moses, and David. Platonism regards the symbol as more real than the material appearance so Adam as symbol is what concerns Paul in the I Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 passages.
The image of God can't be intelligence or free will - angels had both (at least at one time). It can't be emotion, animals and possibly angels have that too. It is more likely a POSITIONAL image - like an ambassadors was said to be in the image of the king - to speak for him - to represent him. We are GOd's representatives on earth. Thus our appearance is not important.
Taking the Gen 1 text to establish teh age of teh universe is abusing scripture - it was not the intent of the passage to explain how and when but Who and why. We must look at it through the eyes of freed slaves who had lived under a polytheist Egypt for 300 years.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.