Scan barcode
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.
mom2tcks's review
5.0
Started reading this for many reasons - one of which is the number of young adults who were raised by the lessons of the Bible but found that as they reached adulthood they had to choose between science and the Bible. That choice shouldn't be one a person has to make. This book was very helpful in reconciling the truth of the Bible with empirical science. Highly recommend reading this book if you or you know of someone who is struggling with this choice.
skinnercolin221's review
4.0
My ramblings while my kids jump on me as I attempt a review: this is a great look at how to interpret Genesis 1 in light of authorial intent and the culture of the time. I’ll be honest that I need to take a second look at the arguments in the first few chapters, because I don’t think the small space really allowed for a thorough comparison of the Bible and other ancient near east texts of a similar time. I still think the functional view is a great idea and he does a great job of dealing with objections through out the book. The one objection I’m not sure he sufficiently dealt with was “can’t the Hebrew ‘create’ refer to both material and functional creation?” Regardless, it was the first time I noticed how little “ex nihilo” happens in Genesis 1. There’s nearly always a pre-existing substance being molded in some way with a function prescribed.
I think the strongest points were comparisons to Joshua’s command for the sun to stand still and that the Bible had no anachronistic scientific advancement in it’s description of the natural world. Both of these would lead us to believe that the authors spoke to the people of their time as people of their time. As someone studying earth history and biology at a university, this is helpful to keep straight, because then there is no uncomfortable squeezing of empirical scientific results into an ancient mind, whether it would align or not.
I think the author’s goal is great. The false dichotomy of “choose God or science” sometimes pushed by both the religious and the secular has successfully destroyed many people’s faith. It can also be psychologically destructive as some people (myself included) have had a conflicting sense of both a desire to honor God and a desire to be honest about evidence in a field I love. This book offers an imperfect first attempt (as the author admits) to find an interpretation of scripture that is faithful, while allowing science to be science. It’s not the first, but I think it’s the best I’ve seen yet.
I think the strongest points were comparisons to Joshua’s command for the sun to stand still and that the Bible had no anachronistic scientific advancement in it’s description of the natural world. Both of these would lead us to believe that the authors spoke to the people of their time as people of their time. As someone studying earth history and biology at a university, this is helpful to keep straight, because then there is no uncomfortable squeezing of empirical scientific results into an ancient mind, whether it would align or not.
I think the author’s goal is great. The false dichotomy of “choose God or science” sometimes pushed by both the religious and the secular has successfully destroyed many people’s faith. It can also be psychologically destructive as some people (myself included) have had a conflicting sense of both a desire to honor God and a desire to be honest about evidence in a field I love. This book offers an imperfect first attempt (as the author admits) to find an interpretation of scripture that is faithful, while allowing science to be science. It’s not the first, but I think it’s the best I’ve seen yet.
tawallah's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.0
camebrew's review
challenging
informative
medium-paced
5.0
An absolutely critical book to my personal understanding of teleological origins and approaching the Bible from an ancient-near eastern worldview. I believe reading this book would clarify so much for so many people.
davehershey's review
4.0
A great book on how to read Genesis 1. Walton argues that when we look at the ancient context we see that creation is Genesis 1 is not material, rather it is functional. In other words, though Christians believe God created the materials (the stuff), Genesis 1 is about how this stuff was given its functions (jobs). All sides in the debate on Genesis 1 are mistaken then, for they assume create is to create the materials when it actually is to give them function.
From this he argues that Christians can accept any findings that science presents, as Genesis 1 says nothing about science. Science is metaphysically neutral; it has nothing to say about whether there is purpose (as in Christianity) or no purpose (naturalism). Walton challenges scientists to frown as much upon those who interpret the universe to be purposeless and teach this purposelessness in a science classroom as it already is to those who teach it has a purpose along with the Christian message. Scientists should discuss purpose, since life is not value neutral, but this discussion should take place in ethics and philosophy, outside of the science classroom.
Overall, a great book on how to understand Genesis 1 and what such an understanding means in today's culture.
From this he argues that Christians can accept any findings that science presents, as Genesis 1 says nothing about science. Science is metaphysically neutral; it has nothing to say about whether there is purpose (as in Christianity) or no purpose (naturalism). Walton challenges scientists to frown as much upon those who interpret the universe to be purposeless and teach this purposelessness in a science classroom as it already is to those who teach it has a purpose along with the Christian message. Scientists should discuss purpose, since life is not value neutral, but this discussion should take place in ethics and philosophy, outside of the science classroom.
Overall, a great book on how to understand Genesis 1 and what such an understanding means in today's culture.