Scan barcode
ashleyhanson1989's review
5.0
I appreciated the thorough view and evidence given by the author. There were some moments where I struggled to make it through the book due to word choices, or concepts I was unfamiliar with, but knowing the overarching theme of the book brought it all together. I would recommend this book to anyone struggling with God vs. Science, in the Creation aspect.
alanrussellfuller's review
2.0
Walton's aim is to give literalists an alternate way to interpret Genesis 1 in a way that it doesn't contradict science. He does so by various word studies and comparing to ancient mid-eastern origin myths. His claim is that Genesis 1 is about God taking His place in a cosmic temple in order to rule a pre-existent universe. It is about "function" rather than material creation.
So who created the material universe? He says God did of course. It seems like six of one or half a dozen of the other to me, and I find word studies unnecessary and boring.
So who created the material universe? He says God did of course. It seems like six of one or half a dozen of the other to me, and I find word studies unnecessary and boring.
persistent_reader's review
5.0
More detailed review to come, but what if we are reading Genesis 1 through post-enlightenment eyes and minds and missing what the text is really about?
bkoser's review
3.0
Bottom line: Walton's interpretation is worth consideration (although I'm not convinced), and the book is a worthwhile read (although it could have used an editor).
Walton's position, the cosmic temple inauguration view, claims that creation in Genesis 1 is functional, not material. He discusses what this means, examines a few theological implications, briefly compares his view to others, and discusses the debate about teaching creation/evolution in schools.
Walton gives examples of the difference between material and functional creation: creating a chair would be material creation, while creating a company would be functional creation. A restaurant is materially created when the building is built and filled with utensils and ingredients, and is functionally created when it receives its licenses and permits and opens its doors for customers. Assembling a computer's hardware gives it material existence; installing software gives it functional existence. I think I understand the difference but I'm not sure exactly what Walton is claiming for Genesis 1 functional creation. I think his position is that, for example, the sun existed as a star before Genesis 1, but was functionally created as "the Sun" in Genesis 1 when God gave it the purpose of ruling the day, etc.
I only think that because Walton never comes right out and says it. That's my first problem with the book: it feels like the author was developing his theory as he wrote it down, skipping around and repeating himself. That's a valid way to write a book, but I would prefer to read an edited, concise, logically-progressing argument. It's also overly wordy; it felt like he was trying to write for laymen but couldn't quite pull it off.
The FAQ section includes the question, "What would eyewitnesses have seen on these days?" Walton's answer is, "We overrate eyewitnesses in our culture...The perspective of an eyewitness would be inadequate and and too limited to be of any good. Genesis 1 is not intended to be an eyewitness account." Wouldn't "I don't know" have been a less weaselly answer? I guess he was trying to say it doesn't matter what "actually" happened, but it comes off as snarky.
Walton lists all the times the Hebrew words "bara" (create) and "tohu" (empty) are used in the Bible to back up his position. Probably because I don't completely understand his position, I felt the usage was less cut and dried than he claimed.
Walton's main claim is a good one: Genesis was written by and for Ancient Near East (ANE) people, and so we should try to understand it with their context in mind. Reading only in our 21st Century Western context can easily lead to misinterpretations.
In the end, as Walton points out, I don't know Hebrew or anything about ANE culture. I'm taking his word that, for example, ANE people thought of origins solely as a functional event rather than a material creation or a combination of the two. I tend to side with a consensus of experts (which is why I think the earth is older than 6000 years and we did go to the moon), and if this position gains traction I could see myself getting on board, but I'm not currently convinced.
That leads to another common objection: if this is the way the original audience understood Genesis 1, why did no one figure it out before 2009? Walton acknowledges this objection but doesn't really answer it, saying only that the knowledge was lost and has only been regained recently as we have gathered more information about this time period and culture. That's certainly possible, but modern reinterpretations always make me pause.
Walton discusses a few theological implications of his position (e.g. day 7 creation rest is not a cessation of labor), but only briefly. For example, one objection to an old earth by Young-Earth Creationists is that it requires death before sin, which would seem to contradict Romans 5:12. I've read some explanations (e.g. it's referring to sin by men, and therefore also death for men; it refers to spiritual death rather than physical death). Walton's theory is that death means the loss of eternal life through the separation from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It's a valid theory, but is argued in a brief and oblique manner. These theological discussions are mainly what I wanted from this book, so I was a little disappointed.
Walton oddly sets up a false dichotomy between deism and "there's no difference between natural and supernatural". Believing that, for example, God set up physical laws like gravity rather than himself pushing rocks down to earth when dropped is hardly deism. I might be too naturalistic (e.g. I think "formed me in my mother's womb" is poetic), but I'm certainly no deist.
One of Walton's best arguments is in answer to the question: how could you reconcile the cruelty and waste of evolution with God's character? Walton says that Job also questioned God about suffering: he believed that the righteous would prosper and the wicked would suffer. God never answers Job why he let him suffer; he instead shows the complexity of the world and shows that He is in control. Rather than saying "why would God use evolution?" or "if I were God I wouldn't use evolution", we should trust God's wisdom and goodness and determine what the Bible requires us to defend.
Walton is a little vague on Adam and Eve, but he appears to think they are archetypes rather than actual people. He doesn't really develop this idea; I guess I'll have to read his sequel "The Lost World of Adam and Eve" to hear his full thoughts. Though I think a literal Adam and Eve could be integrated with the cosmic temple view.
Walton's summary of other views:
- Young Earth Creationism is commendable for its faith in scripture, but defends a scientific explanation the Bible does not require and science seems to refute.
- Old Earth Creationism unnecessarily interprets material changes in light of modern scientific understanding (e.g. saying the hydrological cycle was created on Day 2) that the Bible does not require.
- The Framework Hypothesis doesn't go far enough; did ancient Israelites understand Genesis 1 as only literary and theological?
- Walton dismisses other theories (explicity Gap and Day-Age) as not viable (I agree).
I like his stance on the "should they teach creation in public schools" question: the current scientific consensus (currently evolution) should be taught in science class without any comment on metaphysical purpose or lack thereof. The question of purpose should be discussed in a philosophy or theology class.
Walton must have read a good bit of Orson Scott Card; he quotes from two of Card's books, neither of them from the Ender's Game series. Doesn't mean anything, just thought it was interesting. :)
This review sounds pretty harsh. I learn best by critiquing and debating, and that tends to come off as more negative than I feel. Also, while the book is worth reading and his position is a possibility, I had high expectations that were disappointed. I came into the book wanting and half-expecting to be convinced, and was not. The topic warrants more thought and study; I'll try to read Walton's "The Lost World of Adam and Eve" next year, along with some critiques. For now, my position remains, "I don't know".
Walton's position, the cosmic temple inauguration view, claims that creation in Genesis 1 is functional, not material. He discusses what this means, examines a few theological implications, briefly compares his view to others, and discusses the debate about teaching creation/evolution in schools.
Walton gives examples of the difference between material and functional creation: creating a chair would be material creation, while creating a company would be functional creation. A restaurant is materially created when the building is built and filled with utensils and ingredients, and is functionally created when it receives its licenses and permits and opens its doors for customers. Assembling a computer's hardware gives it material existence; installing software gives it functional existence. I think I understand the difference but I'm not sure exactly what Walton is claiming for Genesis 1 functional creation. I think his position is that, for example, the sun existed as a star before Genesis 1, but was functionally created as "the Sun" in Genesis 1 when God gave it the purpose of ruling the day, etc.
I only think that because Walton never comes right out and says it. That's my first problem with the book: it feels like the author was developing his theory as he wrote it down, skipping around and repeating himself. That's a valid way to write a book, but I would prefer to read an edited, concise, logically-progressing argument. It's also overly wordy; it felt like he was trying to write for laymen but couldn't quite pull it off.
The FAQ section includes the question, "What would eyewitnesses have seen on these days?" Walton's answer is, "We overrate eyewitnesses in our culture...The perspective of an eyewitness would be inadequate and and too limited to be of any good. Genesis 1 is not intended to be an eyewitness account." Wouldn't "I don't know" have been a less weaselly answer? I guess he was trying to say it doesn't matter what "actually" happened, but it comes off as snarky.
Walton lists all the times the Hebrew words "bara" (create) and "tohu" (empty) are used in the Bible to back up his position. Probably because I don't completely understand his position, I felt the usage was less cut and dried than he claimed.
Walton's main claim is a good one: Genesis was written by and for Ancient Near East (ANE) people, and so we should try to understand it with their context in mind. Reading only in our 21st Century Western context can easily lead to misinterpretations.
In the end, as Walton points out, I don't know Hebrew or anything about ANE culture. I'm taking his word that, for example, ANE people thought of origins solely as a functional event rather than a material creation or a combination of the two. I tend to side with a consensus of experts (which is why I think the earth is older than 6000 years and we did go to the moon), and if this position gains traction I could see myself getting on board, but I'm not currently convinced.
That leads to another common objection: if this is the way the original audience understood Genesis 1, why did no one figure it out before 2009? Walton acknowledges this objection but doesn't really answer it, saying only that the knowledge was lost and has only been regained recently as we have gathered more information about this time period and culture. That's certainly possible, but modern reinterpretations always make me pause.
Walton discusses a few theological implications of his position (e.g. day 7 creation rest is not a cessation of labor), but only briefly. For example, one objection to an old earth by Young-Earth Creationists is that it requires death before sin, which would seem to contradict Romans 5:12. I've read some explanations (e.g. it's referring to sin by men, and therefore also death for men; it refers to spiritual death rather than physical death). Walton's theory is that death means the loss of eternal life through the separation from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It's a valid theory, but is argued in a brief and oblique manner. These theological discussions are mainly what I wanted from this book, so I was a little disappointed.
Walton oddly sets up a false dichotomy between deism and "there's no difference between natural and supernatural". Believing that, for example, God set up physical laws like gravity rather than himself pushing rocks down to earth when dropped is hardly deism. I might be too naturalistic (e.g. I think "formed me in my mother's womb" is poetic), but I'm certainly no deist.
One of Walton's best arguments is in answer to the question: how could you reconcile the cruelty and waste of evolution with God's character? Walton says that Job also questioned God about suffering: he believed that the righteous would prosper and the wicked would suffer. God never answers Job why he let him suffer; he instead shows the complexity of the world and shows that He is in control. Rather than saying "why would God use evolution?" or "if I were God I wouldn't use evolution", we should trust God's wisdom and goodness and determine what the Bible requires us to defend.
Walton is a little vague on Adam and Eve, but he appears to think they are archetypes rather than actual people. He doesn't really develop this idea; I guess I'll have to read his sequel "The Lost World of Adam and Eve" to hear his full thoughts. Though I think a literal Adam and Eve could be integrated with the cosmic temple view.
Walton's summary of other views:
- Young Earth Creationism is commendable for its faith in scripture, but defends a scientific explanation the Bible does not require and science seems to refute.
- Old Earth Creationism unnecessarily interprets material changes in light of modern scientific understanding (e.g. saying the hydrological cycle was created on Day 2) that the Bible does not require.
- The Framework Hypothesis doesn't go far enough; did ancient Israelites understand Genesis 1 as only literary and theological?
- Walton dismisses other theories (explicity Gap and Day-Age) as not viable (I agree).
I like his stance on the "should they teach creation in public schools" question: the current scientific consensus (currently evolution) should be taught in science class without any comment on metaphysical purpose or lack thereof. The question of purpose should be discussed in a philosophy or theology class.
Walton must have read a good bit of Orson Scott Card; he quotes from two of Card's books, neither of them from the Ender's Game series. Doesn't mean anything, just thought it was interesting. :)
This review sounds pretty harsh. I learn best by critiquing and debating, and that tends to come off as more negative than I feel. Also, while the book is worth reading and his position is a possibility, I had high expectations that were disappointed. I came into the book wanting and half-expecting to be convinced, and was not. The topic warrants more thought and study; I'll try to read Walton's "The Lost World of Adam and Eve" next year, along with some critiques. For now, my position remains, "I don't know".
rev_sarahyoung's review
challenging
informative
medium-paced
5.0
This book is fantastic! Excellent exegesis that seeks to honor the text and understand it within its cultural context. If you've ever struggled with the "fatih and science debate" this book will likely give you a new perspective that can enable us to better understand how ancient hearers would have received Genesis 1.
adamrshields's review
4.0
Short review: A careful and compelling book about Genesis one story of creation. The main argument is that the creation story is not about the material creation, but the functional creation (for instance day 1 was about the creation of order in time, not the physical creation of light photons.) Walton (a professor at Wheaton and Moody Bible Institute, so not 'liberal schools') is trying to show that the best reading of scripture is the one that takes into account what the author intended and what the original readers would have understood. He shows that ancient culture would have understood Gen 1 as the creation of the earth as a temple.
He think that the current creation/evolution debate that we are often concerned with, completely misses the point of what the author was trying to communicate. There are some weaknesses with the book, but it is highly readable and well worth the time.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/genesis-walton/
He think that the current creation/evolution debate that we are often concerned with, completely misses the point of what the author was trying to communicate. There are some weaknesses with the book, but it is highly readable and well worth the time.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/genesis-walton/
mrincredible's review
5.0
A fantastic opener to understanding the complexity of poetry of Genesis's creation account. His model of functional vs material creation is carefully laid out, and his outline of the creation process as a temple dedication ceremony was a fantastic read.
While this book is quite a heavy read, and feels like a thesis, it is comprehensive and a clear journey through the author's thought process. Clearly sourced text and a knowledgeable author gives it a grounding in something other than the author's opinion.
The last third of the book specifically addresses the evolution and creationism debate, and how this becomes irrelevant in the light of the book. Definitely a book that will stick with me for a long time!
While this book is quite a heavy read, and feels like a thesis, it is comprehensive and a clear journey through the author's thought process. Clearly sourced text and a knowledgeable author gives it a grounding in something other than the author's opinion.
The last third of the book specifically addresses the evolution and creationism debate, and how this becomes irrelevant in the light of the book. Definitely a book that will stick with me for a long time!
erikars's review
4.0
The premise of this book is that reading the first chapter of Genesis as an account of physical creation is, in fact, misreading it. A more textually accurate -- and in that sense, a more literal reading -- would be to read it as a functional account of creation.
Walton starts by comparing Genesis 1 to other ancient cosmologies. He does not claim that it is based on those other cosmologies. Rather, his claim is that Genesis 1 serves the same basic function as other ancient cosmologies because that is what the listeners would have expected and because it allowed the listeners to understand how their cosmology differed from others around them. Ancient cosmologies spend very little time worrying about physical creation and most of their time working to convey the function and purpose of creation. Genesis 1 does not seem to be an exception.
The second line of reasoning is looking at how some of the key Hebrew terms in Genesis 1 are used elsewhere in the Old Testament. This most important is how the word commonly translated as create is generally used for granting purpose, not physical creation elsewhere in the Bible.
The final line of reasoning starts to merge more with Walton's view of the consequences of taking a functional view of creation. This line of reasoning focuses on how many of the difficulties of reading the creation account as a physical account of creation go away if you interpret them as a granting of function instead. This, in turn, highlights that the key point to take away from the creation narrative is not that God created all -- that was a given in the ancient world -- but that all has purpose in the created universe.
There are two things I like about this reading. While we can never know the worldview of the people who first passed along the account in Genesis 1, we do know that many of the problems with modern readings of that account come from worldviews developed in the last 500 years. To put it another way, we don't know what exactly the right worldview is, but we know that the one we have isn't it. Thus, any alternate viewpoint can provide an interesting perspective shift.
This view in particular is interesting because, as mentioned above, much of what is problematic about the Genesis one account -- even if you ignore what we've learned through science and just look at internal consistency -- goes away with this alternate reading. This perspective just seems like it fits better.
Overall, a very worthwhile read for anyone interested in the debates about creation.
Walton starts by comparing Genesis 1 to other ancient cosmologies. He does not claim that it is based on those other cosmologies. Rather, his claim is that Genesis 1 serves the same basic function as other ancient cosmologies because that is what the listeners would have expected and because it allowed the listeners to understand how their cosmology differed from others around them. Ancient cosmologies spend very little time worrying about physical creation and most of their time working to convey the function and purpose of creation. Genesis 1 does not seem to be an exception.
The second line of reasoning is looking at how some of the key Hebrew terms in Genesis 1 are used elsewhere in the Old Testament. This most important is how the word commonly translated as create is generally used for granting purpose, not physical creation elsewhere in the Bible.
The final line of reasoning starts to merge more with Walton's view of the consequences of taking a functional view of creation. This line of reasoning focuses on how many of the difficulties of reading the creation account as a physical account of creation go away if you interpret them as a granting of function instead. This, in turn, highlights that the key point to take away from the creation narrative is not that God created all -- that was a given in the ancient world -- but that all has purpose in the created universe.
There are two things I like about this reading. While we can never know the worldview of the people who first passed along the account in Genesis 1, we do know that many of the problems with modern readings of that account come from worldviews developed in the last 500 years. To put it another way, we don't know what exactly the right worldview is, but we know that the one we have isn't it. Thus, any alternate viewpoint can provide an interesting perspective shift.
This view in particular is interesting because, as mentioned above, much of what is problematic about the Genesis one account -- even if you ignore what we've learned through science and just look at internal consistency -- goes away with this alternate reading. This perspective just seems like it fits better.
Overall, a very worthwhile read for anyone interested in the debates about creation.
jordandeanbaker's review
4.0
Tim Mackie recommended this book on an episode of The Bible Project podcast and said it was an easy read. I found myself skimming over some pretty dense sections. Probably 70% of it was easily approachable and that was enough to get the general gist of the author’s argument. Lots to think about and ponder here. The summary/conclusion and FAQ at the end were very helpful.