John Walton on Understanding the Creation Narrative in Context

In this video, John Walton points out that while modern people are inclined to think of creation in terms of material origins—as that is the way we view the rest of the world—ancient people did not think this way. Instead of being concerned about the precise methodology God used for the creation of matter, ancients were more interested in Gods role as the figure in charge of all matter.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• JohnWalton
• CreatNarrContext
• MPEG
• LAN
• 1280x720

[VamboMarbleye1956]

All irrelevant as there is no god.The Context of the Creation Narrative is simple,ancient people looked for reason in there lives.The thinkers of the time through myth and legend created creation.

I know that what ever I say as an atheist will be scorned bye the religious and for that i am sorry

[AchillesShield]

"But I don't believe miracles are possible" you might say? Well, this is where one must make a leap of faith. NT Wright presented a thesis to his atheist supervisor, arguing the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. The supervisor said the paper was brilliant, but didn't believe it because of his worldview. Wright said that was alright, since the evidence can only take you so far. We can show why the Resurrection has a solid historical basis, but 100% 'proof' is impossible.

[AchillesShield]

As far as the miracles go, we have eyewitness testimony from contemporaries. The Gospels, as Richard Bauckham points out in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, were biographies of the life of Jesus. The gospels are at pains to stress that they are reportage and not realistic fiction. C.S. Lewis once quipped on the 'banality' of the Gospels, in that they lacked the embellishment of tall tales.

[noforbiddenquestions]

@AchillesShield Also, I totally agree that some of our "modern" beliefs are irrational and contradictory -- and I think we should discard those beliefs! I think it's not a stretch, though, to say that with modern science, technology, and medicine, we have fewer superstitious beliefs about the world than people thousands of years ago.

[noforbiddenquestions]

@AchillesShield So ... okay. I don't believe word for word everything that it says in any ancient text. Also, we do have evidence that battles happened, that governments existed, etc. so finding an ancient text that says King so-and-so fought a battle against King whats-his-name isn't on face ridiculous. We don't have other evidence of people rising from the dead, people walking on water, or boats big enough to hold seven of every animal on the planet.

[AchillesShield]

@noforbiddenquestions "There's no evidence that any of it is literally true." By that logic we would have to discount most events recorded in ancient texts, since few of these have been externally confirmed through archaeology. Ancient history is a precarious business. Only occasionally do we 'get lucky' and confirm a detail from an ancient text. Also, your comment on ancient people being superstitious is a little elitist; some of our 'modern' beliefs are extremely irrational and contradictory.

[noforbiddenquestions]

What he's saying sounds sensible enough -- we should recognize that ancient people were very superstitious and not as scientifically- or literally-minded as modern people -- but once you've recognized that, why continue to believe this document that ancient, superstitious people put together? Why go on being a Christian? There's no evidence that any of it is literally true, and the best anyone can pull out is generic "analogies" or morals that anyone could have come up with without the Bible.

[1brandwag]

Guees what he says is a bit of a strawman as to saying that genesis didn't mean six days.as firstly he's right they would want to know who made the universe and that is God.However this still lock in with God creating as he says he did,as when he said how he coverns the place, 6 days work, 7 day rest.it justfied by that he created in this order.no point following a sabbath that is in concept based on a figurative tale.So it was six days,but also has this deeper meaning, not either or.

[JoeCavy4]

"according to its kind" That is a science in this. That is a Law of both religion and science. We can skirt this for foods and medical reasons. Good reasons for sure. But we cannot delve into things like supermen, transhumanism, or talking dogs. Sounds goofy, but those things are going on.

[99minerkc]

"creation Narrative?"  Is there science in this?