No, I found it on SGP http://preterism.ning.com/profiles/blogs/review-of-john-waltons-genesis

It’s not over here. But, right, Walton and Fesko see the Cosmos as God’s Temple. This is powerful imagery. Because it is not Jerusalem below that God restored, but our entrance into Jerusalem above: God’s cosmic temple…..and, what is included in that temple: the earth. The earth, then, figures into Walton’s view (which is largely Wright’s) and this is what is driving them that “the creation” itself will come to manifest the realities of salvation eventually. In fact, it already has, but, like ourselves, there is a “not yet”. See, we “have” (not will have, but have) these treasures in earthen vessels. And, when we die (the not yet) they will be fully manifested in heaven. So, it is perfectly logical to deduce that the creation itself will come to manifest the reality of what the Parousia brought: the new jerusalem “coming down” to earth to dwell with Man. This is still as of yet “under realized” (9.5 Thesis)…….Full Preterism must revert to hyper-preterism, or it must start coming to grips with the future.

Walton’s whole point with “bara” is that it is a revealtion of the “functionality” of creation, the moon, stars, and trees. Creation “functions” as a Temple. There are rules. The sun, moon and stars, “govern” the Hebrew Calendar, to tell them “when” to worship on “what” particular festival. That’s the “function” of the moon – the real moon, that God created (which Walton here would not say that Genesis is about the “creation” of the moon, although that can be deduced since, obviously, it was made to “function” to “govern” the calendar). Nonetheless, it’s the real moon in Genesis. Not a “symbol”.

“Walton’s whole point with “bara” is that it is a revealtion of the “functionality” of creation…which Walton here would not say that Genesis is about the “creation” of the moon”

Yes. Walton’s whole presentation is that the material creation already existed (God somewhere back in time did created it, but the Bible gives no account that activity) and then later in time God’s gives the various bodies (moon, stars, sun etc.) a function, such as to serve as time indicators as you mentioned. An example is the sun. In his example, he was saying that the sun had been burning physically as it does today, but it still did not exist. Then when God assigned a function to it, it now existed. This assigning a function is what is recorded in Genesis 1. I am glad to see in your own words you admit that Walton is saying that no material creation took place during the seven-day record of Genesis 1. So how excatly does Genesis 1 support your YEC position if you assign Genesis 1 as a record of the physical creation? I’m not getting it.

On top of the fact that Walton states, many times over throughout the book, that Genesis is not an account of the material creation, but only a functional one, he rest on science to tell us the age of the earth. This is clear all throughout the book, but on page 98 he specifically states, “The material phase nonetheless could have been under development for long eras and could in that case correspond with the descriptions of the prehistoric ages as science has uncovered them for us. There would be no reason to think that the sun had not been shining, plants had not been growing, or animals had not been present.”

What does “eras” mean in the context of how science describes the prehistoric ages? Billions of years Sam? You are correct that Walton doesn’t argue one way or another about the age, but he is clear that we can rest in science to inform us of that fact. He has no problem with science working in the layer (page 115 ff) it can work in which is the same layer as the matieral world, so science can tells us the age of the world.

Below are some quotes from Walton’s book from his chapter on bara that are directly related to this very discussion.

“Page 43-44
This list shows that grammatical objects of the verb are not easily identified in material terms, and even when they are, it is questionable that the context is objectifying them. That is, no clear example occurs that demands a material perspective for the verb, though many are ambiguous. In contrast, a large percentage of the contexts require a functional understanding. These data cannot be used to prove a functional ontology, but they offer support that existence is viewed in functional rather than material terms, as is true throughout the rest of the ancient world. If the Israelites understood the word bara to convey creation in functional terms, then that is the most “literal” understanding that we can achieve. Such as understanding does not represent an attempt to accommodate modern science or to neutralize the biblical text. The truest meaning of a text is found in what the author and hearers would have thought.
This view find support from an unexpected directions. It has long been observed that in the contexts of bara no materials for the creative act are ever mentioned, and an investigation of all the passages mentioned above substantiate that claim. How interesting it is that these scholars then draw the conclusion that bara implies creation out of nothing (ex nihilo). One can see with a moment of thought that such a conclusion assumes that “create” is a material activity. To expand their reasoning for clarity’s sake here: Since “create” is a material activity (assumed on their part), and since the context never mention the materials used (as demonstrated by the evidence), then the material object must have been brought into existence without using other materials (i.e. out of nothing). But one can see that the whole line of reasoning only works if one can assume that bara is a material activity. In contrast, if, as the analysis of objects presented above suggest, bara is a functional activity, it would be ludicrous to expect that materials are being used in the activity. In other words, the absence of reference to materials, rather than suggesting material creation out of nothing, is better explained as indication that bara is not a material activity but a functional one. This is not a view that has been rejected by other scholars; it is simply one they never considered because their material ontology was a blind presupposition for which no alternative was ever considered.
An important caveat must be noted at this point. If we conclude that Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins, we are not thereby suggesting that God is not responsible for material origins, and that, in fact, material origins do involve at some point creation out of nothing. But that theological question is not the one we are asking. We are asking a textual question: What sort of origins account do we find in Genesis 1? Most interpreters have generally thought Genesis 1 contains an account of material origins because that was the only sort of origins that our material culture was interested in. It wasn’t that scholars examined all the possible levels at which origins could be discussed; they presupposed the material aspect.
Page 46- The purpose of this chapter can be summarized by the following expanded interpretive translation of verse 1: “In the initial period, God created by assigning functions throughout the heavens and the earth, and this is how he did it.” The chapter does involve creative activities, but all in relation to the way that the ancient world thought about creation and existence: by naming, separating and assigning functions and roles in an ordered system. This was accomplished in the seven-day period that the text calls “the beginning”. Genesis 2:3 comes back to this in its summary as it indicates that completion of the bara activities over the seven-day period.”

Rich,

you misunderstand Jason’s point. The functional theory of Walton concerns the PHYSICAL CREATION, the COSMOS – the moon up there in the sky, and the sun up there. Jason is not saying that Walton is giving an account of the ORIGINS of physical creation, but that he is dealing with physical creation, the cosmos – and Walton explicitly says so. Gee, man! Every time you guys hear the phrase “physical creation” you freak out! Walton has not “completely removed” physical creation from his account – he is dealing with the ORDERING and FUNCTION of the PHYSICAL CREATION. He is not saying how long it existed before God set about ordering it. It COULD, COULD, Rich, be eras past, or it COULD, COULD, Rich, be a week past – his point: THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY. But, to deny he is not dealing with the physical creation-cosmic order is bogus….have YOU read the book?

Rich,

You wrote, ” I see him talking about the Neolithic revolution and it associating with the granting of the image of God on two individuals that leads to Homo sapiens. But, nothing about Adam being the first man” Okay, keep reading. See those questions? “Were the previous hominoid species the image of God? Were they subject to death? How do they relate to the Fall? Are they biologically mixed into the current human race? These are questions THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED by those promoting this view.”

Yep. They most certainly NEED to be answered. Any answers coming from the CC crowd? Nope. Also, “if it turns out that the earth is young, so be it!” (95). His view can work with old and young views, as he EXPLICITLY SAID. Jason hit the nail on the head: Genesis is about origins AND function. I don’t believe Walton has firmly made his “proof” (and, as I said, not all scholars are convinced of his argument).

from my review, “Secondly, following type and antitype, Adam’s fault and being is related to “all human beings” (70, 71). Adam is the “archetype.” Their sin (Adam and Eve) was the “dooming” of all humanity (139). Here, Walton draws from Romans 5. Then, he writes, “whatever evolutionary processes lead to the development of animal life, primates and even prehuman hominids, my theological convictions lead me to posit substitutive discontinuity between that process and the creation of the historical Adam and Eve” (139).

Catch that? “Adam is the elephant in the room that no one wants to address. The genealogies that have him at the start, the Table of Nations that has Eve, the mother of all the living, as their mother create massive problems for any view that does not take Adam and Eve as the single parents of every human being that has been, is, and will be. We are on solid ground when we state that unless our questions, raised by Walton, are satisfactorily answered, we have the right to continue to insist that they are problems for the Beyond Creation Science view.”

See? Finally, from my review, “If one wishes to pursue the idea of evolution and an old earth science, they, says Walton, are free to do so. They are not obligated by the Bible to maintain a young earth science. I have criticized the Intelligent Design movement, and the Creation Science movement as both being empirical, and as such, cannot “prove” their views. Neither can the old earth science. Science is merely a useful enterprise that manipulates elements to form new elements, sometimes, accidentally, with surprising results. But, to say that science can explain how it happened by using causation (induction, which can always be falsified) is to leave the limitations of science. The laws of physics can be proven false, but they can never be proven true.
Walton goes further by arguing, somewhat, against the view that “all truth is God’s truth” (105). Ever hear that one? If all truth is God’s truth, and science provides truth, then the truths of science must be “accommodated” with the Bible. Walton charges that the old earth advocates (Hugh Ross, Don Stoner) are as much guilty of being “concordists” as young earthers. Neither are reading the text as the text should be read and understood as the ancient Israelites would have understood it.

Walton continues to make this charge of science: “We are fully aware that what we call “scientific truth” one day may be different the next day” (105). Science does not “determine what really happened” (105). “Scientific theory does not qualify as such an inspired voice” (106).”

So, we are “free to believe whatever descriptive model for origins that makes the most sense” (140). See? He is not arguing for or against YE (drop the “creationist” part….I am YE, not YEC, you keep getting that confused).

Walton is also clear that the “temple” in the Garden is a “microcosmos” of the LARGER MACROCOSMOS – the Creation (83). This isn’t what CC teaches at all…..not even close. You guys LAUGHED at my interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, where, drawing from Walton, I built my case….We have TWO TEMPLES in Gn 1 and 2: the MACRO and the MICRO. The MICRO was “destroyed” in the flood – the “heavens and earth” that was DESTROYED – II Peter 3. The MACRO remained. There is another MICRO “heavens and earth” about to be destroyed: Jerusalem. See how that works? Fits perfectly, like a glove.

Easy. Adam was created on the sixth day, and the genealogy to the table of nations, to Chronicles, to Luke all came from Adam and Eve. How else do you think I would answer it? I know you hate that answer, but you can’t say it’s not biblical.

Absolutely fellas. Sam and Greg, well said. The Hebrew language in Genesis couldn’t be more clear that the creation days were six solar/lunar days. On SGP a while back pastor Vincent said the Hebrew wasn’t definitive. Myself and Jason King replied back, showing that it was indeed definitive of a young earth with 6 approx. 24-hour days. I challenged him and anyone else to show me, (assuming the Genesis account was indeed an “old age” account,) to show me how God could have made it more clear to me that it was six 24-hour days. In other words, what SHOULD God have said in Genesis if he wanted to tell me that time, space, and matter were created in 6 24-hour solar/lunar days since you believe the Genesis account is not definitive? I also asked the old earthers to explain why, for thousands of years before the “old earth” biblioskeptics, evolutionists, and unbelievers came on the scene in the 19th century, why almost all Jewish boys who read their Torah and went to temple and took Torah lessons from their teacher, all saw in the Genesis account an account of a physical creation in 6 24-hour days. Silence. Utter silence. I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how YHWH could have made himself more clear. It was clear to the Jews, the Church Fathers, and all Christians for 1800 years. But thank God we have the ever-changing and frequently errant scientists of the 19th and 20th centuries to set us straight. LOL!

As you stated, the genealogies tell us that it was about 6000 years ago, and even those who errantly assume there are “gaps” or “discrepancies” can’t get the millions of years required by the biblioskeptics of macro evolution and old age, but at most still less than 10,000yrs!

As for the frequent comments such as “science tells me the earth is old,” I’ve got news for you: Science tells me, and hundreds of thousands of others, that the earth is YOUNG! I marvel when I hear these comments from believers, and I also grieve, for only if someone has believed the lies of “atheistic, naturalistic, materialistic BAD SCIENCE” can they be conned into thinking the scientific evidence tells us the earth is old. In fact, as a creation scientist, I and over 1600 graduate degreed (Masters or PhD’d) creation scientists worldwide know that the vast, vast majority of scientific evidence demonstrates an earth much, much younger than is required by old earthers. (Some of this was also written about on SGP.)

In fact, of the 96 most commonly used and accepted dating methods today, over 90% of them demonstrate a young earth, and NONE of them points to an earth old enough to fit the old earth Darwinian macroevolutionary model. This, also, was on SGP long ago. And this is using dating methods that ASSUME a uniformitarian viewpoint when looking at the data, rather than the biblical “Catastrophic” historical viewpoint that God’s Word teaches. Even viewing the data thru macroevolutionary old-earth uniformitarian glasses, rather than thru Biblical glasses, the data still show a YOUNG EARTH over 90% of the time, and NEVER demonstrate an earth old enough to fit old-earth evolutionary hypotheses!! I rest assured that if the many believers who take hours and hours to argue for an old earth on the internet took just a fraction of that time to access the many YEC websites available and read the data with an open mind, they would get their questions answered, be richly blessed in their daily walk, and would stop positing so many long-since refuted arguments. Just last week on SGP I saw someone bring up the same type of questions that have been answered for over 3 decades now, both biblically and scientifically, such as “how did all the dinosaurs go extinct,” “how did all the animals fit on the ark,” “how could Adam have named all the animals,” and “where did Cain get his wife.” Come on people, there are entire books available in Christian bookstores answering these questions both Bibilically and scientifically, as well as in-depth scientific journals with peer-reviewed articles from some of the brightest PhD’s around. You can even talk in person to some of these men and women who work at YEC ministries if you are diligent enough and put forth the time and effort in a godly manner.

It saddens me that so many people are deceived by those who use ad hom peer pressure tactics such as “Young Earthers are fundamentalists, anti-science, throw their brains out, embarrass the Christian community” etc etc. Nothing could be more untrue. Let them persecute us, let them cast aspersions and mock and ridicule. The truth of God’s Word is worth standing firm over, and truth, both biblical and scientific, is on our side, as always. Soli Deo Gloria! :) Blessings

Thanks Jason

Tim,

You are inferring an exegetical fallacy. Something to think about.