I would like to know if this course is presented from a Creationist or Theistic-evolutionist point of view?
This is only a guess, if you mean a 6 day Creation view, then the answer is definitely NO. The author is John H. Walton, if you have the Zondervan NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, you can get a feel for his theory.
I am not in agreement with his theory on Adam as expressed in the Four Views on the Historical Adam.
As a theologian Walton by default is a creationist but he's not a 24/7-day creationist.
He presents the "text in its context" or in other words, how the early Hebrew listeners would have listened and understood it in its ancient context.
A 'young-earth' creationist might find it more difficult but would still learn something worthwhile watching this Mobile Education series.
YouTube has many videos of his and you can listen for yourself and decide.
Glad I have the Scriptures to depend on, not other peoples doubts. I am always amazed at the people who believe God could not tell us the truth.
That's a pretty simply argument for what most throughout the centuries have considered a pretty complicated issue.
Here is one of his church lectures on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV1B0dZFLx8
Agreed. That said, most did not leave room for evolution. I appreciate a lot of what he says on creation but on reading his views on the historical Adam, i gained a better understanding of where the author was coming from. Please read his view on the historic Adam.
What's complicated? It becomes that when we try to integrate- what is so-called science- into a miraculous act.
Bing Bang (and other start theories), evolution , etc. are just the fancy's of men's minds. There is no evidence other than speculation for any of them.
Here is one of his church lectures on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV1B0dZFLx8
Thanks for that great link!
If I told you the truth, you wouldn't believe it so I tell you fairy tales.
GOD
[:)]
Just to be clear, as far as I know John Walton is not an evolutionist.
I appreciate and respect what you have written above. The forum is not the place for such a conversation. Walton is not a full blown evolutionist agreed but he is open to a version of theistic evolution or his views allows for is. He is not really bothered one way or the other but if pressed he would come down in favour of theistic evolution, at least that was the impression i had after reading his entry on the Historic Adam.
It would be interesting to see what you make of his view on the Historic Adam. Check it out for yourself, perhaps you may come to a different conclusion from me.
Every Blessings
Just to be clear, as far as I know John Walton is not an evolutionist. I appreciate and respect what you have written above. The forum is not the place for such a conversation.
I appreciate and respect what you have written above. The forum is not the place for such a conversation.
Let's see, I'm entitled to spend my money, but I'm not entitled to question what's in the package?
Just to be clear, as far as I know John Walton is not an evolutionist. I appreciate and respect what you have written above. The forum is not the place for such a conversation. Walton is not a full blown evolutionist agreed but he is open to a version of theistic evolution or his views allows for is. He is not really bothered one way or the other but if pressed he would come down in favour of theistic evolution, at least that was the impression i had after reading his entry on the Historic Adam. It would be interesting to see what you make of his view on the Historic Adam. Check it out for yourself, perhaps you may come to a different conclusion from me. Every Blessings
I agree with everything you said here. I have the book on Adam but I have not read it yet. I do know his view from his other books though, and I agree with him in general, as does N.T. Wright and others. Context is everything. Also, I don't think this thread is out of order, as it is discussing the actual course. We are not arguing about anything, so it should be within guidelines.
