Thanks for your warm thoughts, Joe. As for your questions, the word-count restriction imposed on comments was an obstacle to providing you an appropriate answer. After all, you wanted an answer better than a mere "God didn't create life that way," something with support behind it. So I answered your questions in a stand-alone post ("Deism versus Scriptures"). I hope it lines up with what you were looking for.

Ironically, you and Adam are BOTH right about Walton and evolution, as you will see in my response.

Adam,

My post did not actually fail to demonstrate that bara’ (create) regards a function-oriented ontology, for it was never the aim of my post to do so. To recapitulate, the aim of my post was to critically address and correct Statham’s review of Walton’s book and the view he presents therein. Walton already makes a positive case for his view, across several chapters of historical and grammatical exegesis, which Statham seemed to at times misunderstand and at times misrepresent; so I pointed out where and why, and showed what Walton really argues as clearly yet succinctly as I could (which still exceeded 5,000 words).

His point is this (and I will make this brief). The word bara’ is translated properly into English as create, and to create means to bring something into existence. No argument so far, right? But, Walton says, therein lies the rub: existence refers to ontology, so if we want to translate the text literally, whose ontology do we use? Ours or that of the original audience? The problem, he points out, is that this question has never been asked. The view that bara’ refers to a function-oriented ontology “is not a view that has been rejected by other scholars; it is simply one they have never considered because their material ontology was a blind presupposition for which no alternative was ever considered” (p. 44). We are so saturated in our culture with a material view of ontology that it never occurs to us to consider there might be alternatives. “It is a testimony to the pervasive influence of culture that this material ontology seems so obvious as to prevent any thought that it is open to discussion” (pp. 25-26). If our view of ontology is so obvious to us as to escape questioning, surely the Israelite’s view of ontology was that obvious to them. Wait, was their view different? And here the very point at issue jumps out.

If we fail to demonstrate that bara’ includes a material ontology, then is creation as a material activity thus eliminated from Genesis? Exegetically, yes. To say that view X is drawn from the text obviously involves drawing it from the text. Failing to do so means we are drawing it from somewhere other than the text, which runs contrary to interpreting it literally.

You asked if Walton’s exegesis shows that functionality is the only meaning for bara’. Not exactly. Using about 50 occurrences of bara’ in the Old Testament, his exegesis shows there are (1) numerous examples where a function-oriented ontology is clearly in view, (2) several examples where the ontology in view is not clear, and (3) zero examples where a material-oriented ontology is clearly in view. Thus the functional understanding is strongly supported grammatically (and historically elsewhere in the book) while the material understanding is left wanting.

And yes, in the chapter dealing with bara’ Walton includes an exegetical analysis of the phrase “in the beginning” and the role that verse 1 plays.

Duane,

Does Walton address these sort of questions? Yes, and in most cases directly; for example, he performs a thorough exegetical analysis of the “formless and void” question in chapter four. He also includes at the end of nearly every chapter a Technical Support bibliography for further reading; for example, at the end of chapter four he refers the reader to David Tsumura, Creation and Destruction (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), for an in-depth look at the meaning of tohu and bohu. But Walton also addresses these issues elsewhere; for example, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the conceptual world of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006). He also characterizes The Lost World of Genesis One as an accessible treatment of the issue, whereas he is putting the finishing touches on what will amount to a more technical presentation in a forthcoming book, Genesis One as Ancient Cosmology.

I think my advice would indeed have to be, “Buy the book”—for these questions of yours, and whatever additional ones you shall likely think of, would require me to practically reproduce his book here; that is, I could summarize briefly how Walton addresses each question but I think that would be inadequate, leading to further and deeper questions requiring me to expound further on Walton’s analysis, and I am fairly conscious about copyright laws. But I can assure you that he anticipates and confronts such questions throughout his book. For example, your question about Gen. 1:3 is also addressed. As a matter of fact, “This was one of the questions that first got me started on the journey that has resulted in the interpretation of Genesis 1 presented in this book,” he writes, having noticed that light in itself is not the focus of this day’s activities. “What is the text talking about when it indicates that God called the light ‘day’? After all, that is not what light is” (pp. 54-55). The solution is not difficult to find, he says, and proceeds to demonstrate his analysis.

As for your other questions and concerns, I am beginning to think that we might have to seriously consider opening up our discussion forum to the public because the comments section here imposes strict word-count constraints that does not allow for the depth of response your questions deserve. After Bible study tonight I will fire off an email to all Aristophrenium staff about this idea and a thought I had about it today while at work.

PART 2

“So in your view material origins could have been one second or one trillion years prior to Genesis 1.”

Ehhh, no. My view on material origins is not quite that ambiguous. But if all you meant to describe is that the duration of the material phase of construction is not accounted for in Scripture, then yes. Scripture does not say how long the building of the cosmic temple took, but it does tell us that the creation of the cosmic temple took place over a seven-day inauguration ceremony.

“Your determining factor in answering the material origins question seems to be science ...”

No. My determining factor in answering the material origins question is Scripture. As for the duration of material origins, however (i.e., the age of the universe), that question is not answered by Scripture so I enjoy the efforts of science in finding out. Theories come and go, ideas tested and refined or replaced, discoveries made and knowledge expanded, etc., and it is quite fascinating to take in. But is not idolatrous for me; God and his word are final and authoritative, while science and its pursuits are tentative and provisional.

“Given Walton’s exegesis, a young earth/universe is still on the table.”

It can be, yes. But for me personally it is not; for me the issue is settled. But that is just the point, isn’t it? Whether you believe the universe is billions of years old or thousands of years young, Walton’s exegesis of Genesis 1 stands irrespective.

“... on radiometric dating ... Your illustration falls way too short ...”

Actually my illustration was far closer than your idea there. Remember, I was trying to represent four billion years of earth’s history using the 24 hours in a day that a watch reports on. (At the bus stop you were asking the person what time is it.) I was actually much too generous with my illustration; i.e., the constraints are far tighter. And my point remains: not a single watch gave the time of 8:00 AM (i.e., not a single radiometric dating result has ever given an age for the earth anywhere near 10,000 years).

“... later we discover a T-Rex bone that has red blood cells contained within.”

We have? Where?

PART 1

“What I would like to have a closer look at is your process and its conclusion.”

Tonight I will begin working on a post addressing this.

“... you came to believe that the age of the universe is not addressed in scripture, only the functionality. Is this roughly correct?”

Very roughly, yes. The age of the universe is obviously tied to its material origins, whenever that was. Scripture does not tell us when. It just tells us that our God is the Creator upon whom all things—whether in heaven or on earth, visible or invisible—depend for their existence, for in him all things consist. Nothing exists that God is not the author and sustainer of. And there was something Walton pointed out that I loved: this idea that God created everything and then sat back in a supervisor role, letting the universe run by its natural laws, would have been laughable to the Israelites. “If God were to unplug himself in that way from the cosmos, we and everything else in the cosmos would simply cease to exist.” Scripture knows nothing about any ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ demarcation in our world, he observes, nor did the Israelites perceive the world that way—a perspective our worldview should mirror. Amen to that.

“Personally, I would have preferred to see your YEC rejection come from the grounds of scripture rather than science ...”

As I have indicated before, at this site and in that November email, my rejection of young-earth creationism is based on both Scripture and science (whereas my rejection of old-earth creationism is based on just Scripture). But your objection is interesting, for let me ask you this: Do you reject the geocentric view, that the sun, planets, and stars orbit the earth? If so, is your rejection based on science or Scripture?

You see, I view God as the author of both Scripture and nature; thus I believe that Scripture will not contradict nature, and nature will not contradict Scripture. As the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics states, “in some cases extra-biblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations” (emphasis mine). As such, what we learn through science about nature can sometimes serve as a corrective; for example, learning that geocentricism is false corrects how we interpret passages that speak geocentrically, or understanding the nature and function of the human heart guides how we interpret passages that speak about the human heart.

Science is an enemy only when we are idolatrous with it; that is, when science replaces Scripture in our presuppositional commitments. Science can serve as a legitimate and even God-honouring tool in our quest to understand what nature tells us about God (for all of creation can and does tell us about God’s attributes, his eternal power and divine nature); and those discoveries can serve as a corrective “for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations”—including such extra-biblical pursuits as the science of archaeology, a powerful aid in guiding and informing our historico-grammatical exegesis.

If we must eschew science because it is changing all the time while Scripture does not, then we must remain committed geocentrists who believe that hearts are the organ we think with. Yes, Scripture is our first presupposition and ultimate authority, but science is a powerful heuristic ally that can often help us understand Scripture rightly, for our God is the author of both Scripture and nature.

Marc,

Actually no, it is not a variation on the Gap Theory, and for good reason: this view Walton proposes is based on strict exegesis of the text, and the text simply does not allow for gaps of geological ages between verses 1 and 2 (where it usually gets inserted). Moreover, I am not even personally looking to insert extended periods of time anywhere in the text. What I want is to let the text speak for itself, and the text does not allow for such gaps of time. And finally, the notion of forcing Scripture to accommodate science is utterly and thoroughly backwards; that is to say, science should accommodate Scripture. As John Gill noted, the faith of the Christian "rests not in the wisdom of man, nor does it stand in any need of buttressing from scientific savants. The faith of the Christian rests upon the impregnable rock of holy Scripture" as God's authoritative word, our final rule of faith and practice.

As for what I do with problematic radiometric dates, the answer is, "Not much." By way of illustration, suppose you are at a bus stop with several people and you ask what time it is. Nine of them give you a time of anywhere from 3:59 PM to 4:01 PM while one of them says it is 3:45 PM. What is the sensible conclusion to draw? That it is roughly 4:00 PM? Or that, because of the anomalous report, all of them are wrong and thus it must actually be 8:00 AM? The problem, of course, is that it is not ten people telling you it is anywhere from 3:45 PM to 4:01 PM but rather hundreds of thousands of people, and that not a single person is telling you it is 8:00 AM. In other words, hundreds of thousands of radiometric dating results have been published over the last 50 years; the results consistently agree over ninety percent of the time, give or take a few million years, and even the anomalous results are never anywhere near young-earth estimates (younger than 10,000 years).

Joshua,

If there is over two thousand years worth of the scriptural warrant I have called on you to provide (i.e., justifying exegetically that creation is a material activity), from countless exegetes that you are quite sure you could not improve upon, then please point me to at least one. From a wealth of material that vast, naming at least one should be a relatively easy task, I should think.

I have to admit to being utterly baffled by your accusation that the aforementioned exegesis "has already been rejected" by me. I think most sensible people could agree that in order to reject something one would first have to see it. Yes? I cannot reject something I have never seen. That should go without saying. Walton's material is simply the first, out of the volumes of creationist literature I have read over the years, to actually raise that question and then confront it exegetically. If there are others, then please point it out.

You said, "I don't see why providing my own would be of any assistance in the matter." For one thing, it was never said that it had to be your own. Whether it is from some average Joe, yourself, or an esteemed biblical scholar makes no difference to me; all I want is the exegesis. On your view, creation in Genesis 1 speaks of God bringing things into material existence and, given your firm theological and presuppositional stance, I assumed your view was based on sound exegesis of the text. It is no mystery why I might anticipate an exegetical demonstration (your own or someone else's) from someone whose claim is said to be based on exegesis.

And a view being novel to long-standing tradition means only that it could be wrong, not that it is wrong. The issue is not about whether some view is novel (because it is possible for a long-standing view to be wrong), but whether or not it is exegetically faithful to Scripture and God's revealed purposes in redemptive history. Fact is, what matters is what God says in his word, and that is entered into exegetically. I love how Ashby Camp so unapologetically put the matter: "Eisegesis is a sophisticated form of unbelief. "

When it comes to whatever view is held by "practically every orthodox exegete who has ever lived," the point cannot be so easily swept under the rug: none of those exegetes to my knowledge has performed the exegesis I am speaking of. (If they have, then please point it out.) As I said to Marc, the analysis starts with the assumption that creation in Genesis is a material activity and proceeds from there (e.g., showing how the days must be 24-hour periods and so forth), but that initial assumption is never invested with exegetical warrant.

And I certainly do not deny "the special creation of all things in Genesis 1." I deny that it was God bringing things into material existence. Although I certainly believe he did and that Scripture affirms this, I do not believe Genesis is that story.

Adam,

Correct. What actually makes it wrong is the text itself (for example, if we assume the text is saying Y when it is actually saying X). But why should we ever approach the text with assumptions foreign to it? Is it not wrongheaded to allow our beliefs to inform Scripture, when it is Scripture that ought to inform our beliefs? Should we not allow God's authoritative word to speak for itself?

As for whether or not there exists such an exegetical study demonstrating that Genesis 1 is not about material origins but rather something much more profound, the answer is yes—finally. All the creationist literature I have read over the years, from both young-earth and old-earth perspectives, always took it for granted that the creation account in Genesis was a material activity. And so did I, quite frankly. It was not until Walton's book that someone finally stopped and asked the question everyone took for granted. And then dared to look for the answer.

Marc,

The basis thereof is two-fold. First, we have no reason to conclude from the text itself that it is talking about creation as a material activity. Such a conclusion follows from a material ontology, but did the Israelites of the ancient Near East view ontology in material terms like we do in the modern West? That is a question that is almost never asked—and yet it is the very point upon which the whole matter hangs. In all of the creationist literature I have consumed over the years, nowhere have I ever observed anyone raising that question, much less making their case exegetically from the text itself. Their analysis starts with the assumption that creation in Genesis is a material activity and proceeds from there (e.g., showing how the days must be 24-hour periods and so forth), but that initial assumption is never invested with exegetical warrant. Thus we possess no reason to conclude from the text itself that it is talking about creation as a material activity. And given the crucial nature of the issue, we must seek a conclusion, not rest on some anachronistic assumption.

Second, we have good reason to conclude from the text itself that this cosmic ontology is function oriented, not material oriented: from the usage and meaning of the Hebrew bara (create) to the fact that the account begins not with no material but with no function (tohu and bohu), from the usage and meaning of the Hebrew tobe (good) to the fact that in every day of creation there is either no material component or the material component is already there, and so forth. There is also the fact that cultures in the ancient Near East viewed ontology in functional terms, not material terms, and the author and audience of Genesis belonged to that time and place. God spoke into the language of their culture to reveal theological truths in terms they understood. Although it was written for us, it was not written to us; it was God's revelation of himself to Israel, and through Israel to everyone else, a fact we must remain conscious of in our interpretation of the text.

As for the basis upon which I hold that the world is old, that would be Scripture and science. While Scripture tells us that the world materially existed when the Genesis account begins its creation narrative, it does not tell us when the world was brought into material existence. It had been there tohu and bohu for an indefinite period of time. Radiometric dating methods of the oldest rocks found so far place the age of the earth around four billion years old.

First, what our rights are is not a legal matter. Legal refers to law and thus government, which is neither the source nor arbiter of our rights. Government only secures and protects our rights, which are preexistent and unalienable. Second, the Constitution explains the rights of the government (vis-a-vis “the consent of the governed”) and that is all; the only reference it makes to the rights of the people is to enumerate those rights which the government is prohibited from infringing upon. (Note especially the Ninth Amendment). Third, the courts have no authority to interpret our rights. What courts have authority to interpret is the constitutionality of laws and acts of government; that is, whether such laws and acts adhere to the Constitution. You will not find anywhere in Article 3 an authority to interpret our rights. And fourth, the system of laws are NOT inherently secular; that system arises via the consent of the governed, constituted by a free and equal people created by God and endowed thereby with certain unalienable rights. You will find laïcité in France or Belgium, but not in the United States.