What are the March Madness "must haves?"

Page 3 of 5 (93 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
This post has 92 Replies | 8 Followers

Posts 885
Kolen Cheung | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 23 2019 2:54 AM

Tong Shin Kai Clarence:

I will look at that thread but I feel that this is a little misleading on faithlife part. 

They haven't. They only said they'll break the book bundles. Faithlife Connect can be more afortable if you don't need a permanent copy of those Mobile Ed (redeem once every quarter, and each gives you 180-days of access.)

Posts 578
Pam Larson | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 23 2019 7:59 PM

I picked up the Evangelical Press Study Commentary series. It's been in my wish list for a while. With so many of the commentaries included in the various March Madness bundles, it made the whole set 39% off:

https://www.logos.com/product/52892/evangelical-press-study-commentary

Posts 308
Puddin’ | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 23 2019 9:32 PM

Josh:

I saw these and was curious, but I already have Josh McDowell‘s mammoth work on “Evidence that Demands a Verdict,” Lee Stobel’s works, Ken Ham, etc.

Just curious what these bring to the table?  I’m highly intrigued, but don’t want to spring for something that I already have in principle.

Your thoughts?

Posts 490
J. Remington Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 23 2019 10:21 PM

Puddin’:

I saw these and was curious, but I already have Josh McDowell‘s mammoth work on “Evidence that Demands a Verdict,” Lee Stobel’s works, Ken Ham, etc.

Just curious what these bring to the table?  I’m highly intrigued, but don’t want to spring for something that I already have in principle.

Your thoughts?

Walton's work is nothing at all like the books you mentioned. You might think of John Walton's work as a sort of Old Testament version of N. T. Wright. He reads the Old Testament (e.g., creation narrative) through the lens of his patchwork of ancient near eastern literature. 

His basic idea for the creation narrative in Genesis, for instance, is that it teaches a "functional" creation: God assigned functions to already existing things. This reading allows him to say that Genesis and everything that modern science teaches are compatible, since Genesis isn't saying anything about how the universe or earth or biological life came about. (And this is one reason his books have become so popular.)

Posts 308
Puddin’ | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 23 2019 11:31 PM

J. Remington Bowling:

Puddin’:

I saw these and was curious, but I already have Josh McDowell‘s mammoth work on “Evidence that Demands a Verdict,” Lee Stobel’s works, Ken Ham, etc.

Just curious what these bring to the table?  I’m highly intrigued, but don’t want to spring for something that I already have in principle.

Your thoughts?

Walton's work is nothing at all like the books you mentioned. You might think of John Walton's work as a sort of Old Testament version of N. T. Wright. He reads the Old Testament (e.g., creation narrative) through the lens of his patchwork of ancient near eastern literature. 

His basic idea for the creation narrative in Genesis, for instance, is that it teaches a "functional" creation: God assigned functions to already existing things. This reading allows him to say that Genesis and everything that modern science teaches are compatible, since Genesis isn't saying anything about how the universe or earth or biological life came about. (And this is one reason his books have become so popular.)

Thank you.  Quick question:  Does Walton take the view that meshes evolution w. Genesis?  

I have seen this trend in recent years and, IMO, this tact seems to attempt to pacify scientists while still retaining a biblical worldview concerning the origin of the universe.  

Of course, I could be seriosly misinformed, just curious about his view before I spring the pocketbook.

Posts 490
J. Remington Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 7:05 AM

Puddin’:

Thank you.  Quick question:  Does Walton take the view that meshes evolution w. Genesis?  

I have seen this trend in recent years and, IMO, this tact seems to attempt to pacify scientists while still retaining a biblical worldview concerning the origin of the universe.  

Of course, I could be seriosly misinformed, just curious about his view before I spring the pocketbook.

It would be misleading to say that Walton meshes evolution with Genesis, since he doesn't think the Bible says anything about how human beings came to be.

In "The Lost World of Adam and Eve" N. T. Wright has an excursus entitled "Excursus on Paul's Use of Adam". Wright loosely takes up Walton's line of thought: the text isn't about the existence of Adam.  The text is about Adam's vocation, the kingdom of God, and Christ's fulfillment. (Of course that's actually irrelevant to whether or not the text contains or presupposes information about the existence of Adam. . . but, whatever, I'm just explaining what he says.)

Wright goes back to the Old Testament where Israel is supposed to be part of the restoration-from-Adam's-failings project and uses this fact to propose that since Israel was chosen from among various other peoples then maybe Adam and Eve were chosen from among various other pre-existing hominids. (Nevermind that none of the texts he cites are about that!)

So, in a sense you could say Walton (and extending Walton's approach, as Wright does) meshes evolution with Genesis. . . but not in a concordist way. Only in a "you're free to believe that" way.

Edit: Even though it may be clear from my asides that I don't think this scheme holds up to rational scrutiny (and I think I called it barely coherent in my initial post in this thread) I do think Walton is worth reading if for no other reason than that he, like Wright, has been extremely influential.

Posts 2856
Doc B | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 10:50 AM

Puddin’:
Does Walton take the view that meshes evolution w. Genesis?

My answer to your question might be a little easier to grasp than JRB's-

  Yes.

My thanks to the various MVPs. Without them Logos would have died early. They were the only real help available.

Faithlife Corp. owes the MVPs free resources for life.

Posts 247
Gary Osborne | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 1:28 PM

Doc B:

Puddin’:
Does Walton take the view that meshes evolution w. Genesis?

My answer to your question might be a little easier to grasp than JRB's-

  Yes.

Which makes my answer to purchasing it a firm “No”.

Posts 1383
Ben | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 2:18 PM

One of my favorite excerpts from Walton's Lost World of Genesis One (which I highly recommend, especially at this price.) 

<<Q: Isn’t this just really a dodge to accommodate evolution?

  A: The interpretation set forth in this book arose out of my desire to fully understand the biblical text. Understanding evolution and its role is a much lower value. Evolution represents the current scientific consensus to explain the many observations that have been made in paleontology, genetics, zoology, biochemistry, ecology and so on. The question is how much of what is involved in biological evolution runs counter to what I understand to be biblical claims and theological realities. In the interpretation of the text that I have offered, very little found in evolutionary theory would be objectionable, though certainly some of the metaphysical claims of evolution remain unacceptable.

Q: Why don’t you want to just read the text literally?

A: I believe that this is a literal reading. A literal reading requires an understanding of the Hebrew language and the Israelite culture. I believe that the reading that I have offered is the most literal reading possible at this point. Someone who claims a “literal” reading based on their thinking about the English word “create” may not be reading the text literally at all, because the English word is of little significance in the discussion.>>

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton

Posts 490
J. Remington Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 2:34 PM

Hugh Ross says the exact same thing.

Posts 1383
Ben | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 2:58 PM

I don't think Ross has Walton's familiarity and expertise with the ancient world and cultural context of Genesis.

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton

Posts 490
J. Remington Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 3:12 PM

Ben:

I don't think Ross has Walton's familiarity and expertise with the ancient world and cultural context of Genesis.

ok. So what? I was just pointing out that if this is one of your favorite Walton quotes you can find the same sort of generic preforatory remarks all across the spectrum. I'm sure a YEC like Ken Ham would say the same. 

Posts 1383
Ben | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 3:23 PM

The point being, if you want to understand Genesis in its ancient, historical, literal, context, talk to someone whose expertise is in Hebrew Bible, Semitics, ancient Near East, etc.  That's the kind of expertise necessary to provide real exegesis.  Neither Ken Ham nor Hugh Ross have the equivalent "understanding of the Hebrew language and the Israelite culture." One is an astrophysicist and the other has a degree in education.

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton

Posts 490
J. Remington Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 3:33 PM

The point of your favorite quote was that? Didn't seem like it. Anyway, sure, having an understanding of those things is great for exegesis. Lots of people have those things and don't come to Waltons conclusions. The problem with Walton isn't his understanding of Hebrew, it's that his conceptual categories are confused. 

In the end even an expert Semitic languages can make mistakes in his reasoning process and it doesn't take an expert in Semitic languages to spot a conceptual confusion. 

Posts 26987
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 4:13 PM

J. Remington Bowling:

The point of your favorite quote was that? Didn't seem like it. Anyway, sure, having an understanding of those things is great for exegesis. Lots of people have those things and don't come to Waltons conclusions. The problem with Walton isn't his understanding of Hebrew, it's that his conceptual categories are confused. 

Give me a break - I already said I was grumpy today. If you provide your opinion, you have no grounds to complain if someone else provides an opinion ... and I did appreciate the effort to support the opinion from the resource. I detest threads of the sort because many posters assume "we" and "best" means "me" and "support my view". And by page 3 someone has nearly always succeeded in dragging someone else into an argument. There are (church) mice of many colors in the forums.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 490
J. Remington Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 4:49 PM

MJ. Smith:
Give me a break - I already said I was grumpy today. If you provide your opinion, you have no grounds to complain if someone else provides an opinion

I didn't complain about anyone sharing their opinion. 

MJ. Smith:
I detest threads of the sort because many posters assume "we" and "best" means "me" and "support my view".

I haven't noticed anyone do that in this thread. I recommended several resources that don't support my view, John Walton was one of them. 

And by page 3 someone has nearly always succeeded in dragging someone else into an argument. There are (church) mice of many colors in the forums.

Seems to be most threads these days. 

Posts 458
Liam & Abi Maguire | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 5:04 PM

J. Remington Bowling:

In the end even an expert Semitic languages can make mistakes in his reasoning process and it doesn't take an expert in Semitic languages to spot a conceptual confusion. 

By your own logic so could Ken Ham, et al. In fact, one could argue that the one who is not an expert is more likely to make a mistake in reasoning or conception than the one who is an expert. Mastery of a subject or area of expertise is by definition what makes them an expert. 

By way of analogy, who is more likely to make a mistake identifying an illness in a patient: a diagnostician or a first-year medical student?

The tone of replies here in these discussions sometimes imply (unintentionally, perhaps) that one's view of creation is a test of one's biblical fidelity. Yet at the end of the day, none of us knows how an ANE Israelite would read Genesis 1 because we have none to ask. Therefore, we must all proceed with an extreme measure of intellectual humility and charitableness to the views of those who disagree with us.

Check out my blog 'For Fathers'

Posts 490
J. Remington Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2019 6:43 PM

Liam Maguire:

By your own logic so could Ken Ham, et al.

This is a bizarre response. As if anything in my comment indicated that Ham et all couldn't or wouldn't make mistakes in reasoning.

Liam Maguire:
In fact, one could argue that the one who is not an expert is more likely to make a mistake in reasoning or conception than the one who is an expert. Mastery of a subject or area of expertise is by definition what makes them an expert. 

By way of analogy, who is more likely to make a mistake identifying an illness in a patient: a diagnostician or a first-year medical student?

This only applies in the very narrow field of one's expertise. So while Walton is far less likely to make a mistake as it relates to some point of Semitic languages, there is no presumption that he is less likely to make mistakes than, say, Ken Ham when it comes to a syllogism or the reasoning process generally.

Page 3 of 5 (93 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS