I can’t expect Walton to write a work that specifically addresses my questions for the text. But since my overwhelming question is how God’s plan and message and how Biblical inerrancy are affected by the reality that what I am reading is not literal history, I haven’t found Walton very helpful. I don’t mean this as a slight on Dr. Walton at all, he has his own goals and intended audience, and the NIVApplication Commentary likewise has its own very valid goals. I’m a graduate of Wheaton College but regrettably never crossed paths with Dr. Walton. Mathematics and engineering were on the other side of campus.

I’m still in Chapter 2 myself for much the same reasons you are. But Dr. Walton’s position reaches far beyond what he relates to us in the NIV commentary. As he wrote to me recently in a personal email exchange:

“My Genesis Commentary that you quoted a few times represented the front edge of my development of a new paradigm for dealing with Genesis 1 as an ancient Near Eastern document… Some of this is in my Genesis commentary, but it was still in a very early stage of development and not worked out thoroughly. It is more carefully (and concisely) developed in my 2006 book, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament.”

I look forward to reading this book. I can’t comment on Dr. Walton’s personal opinion of evolution, but I do know that he has read widely on the subject, is married to a biochemist, and is quite knowledgable on scientific matters.

Peter Enns’ I&I might also be helpful to you.

Excellent observations. The problem with many atheists is that they interpret the Bibe in a similar (if not identical) manner as young-earth creationists!

Pete,

(We’ve discussed this before on my blog …) You’re correct that Walton’s commentary is inconsistent in its use of the ANE perspective. I’ve got Walton’s ANE Thought, but I haven’t yet found the opportunity to read through it (and may not depending on how intense my Persian language classes turn out to be). Nevertheless, I do hope that Walton gets the opportunity to rework his Genesis commentary in light of his new book. (Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation is also on my must-read list.)

Funny thing about this ring of blogs is that few comment threats if any are complete before someone recommends one of the holy trinity of EC books

“Beyond the Firmament” Your very own
“Inspiration and Incarnation” Enns
“Genesis NIVApplication commentary” Walton

On another blog I also included “The Meaning of Creation” as the fourth holy book, but now I realize it is more like the missing Q document, the forerunner for which all the others have seemed to spawn.

I have already read Enns and should probably give it a second read (my pastor though has it at the moment). I had reserved excitement for the idea that the Bible was both 100% written by God and 100% written by man; though I never thought Enns quite fleshed out what that might mean. Or at least, he didn’t go far enough for me to help reconcile history and Biblical narrative. What Enns did say though was enough to get him suspended from Westminster so saying more was probably out of the question.

I’ll take a look at Walton’s new book. And hmmm, married to a biochemist… Okay, break the suspence for all us. You seem to have been exchanging a few emails with him, go ahead and ask him (I’ll promise not to tell the Wheaton Administration:)

When I said, “I can’t comment” — it’s becasue I really don’t know. I have my own opinion based on comments he made to me in personal correspondence, but I’m not sure it would be profitable to speculate publicly.

I also forgot that you had already read Enns. But you’re right, it has become a knee-jerk reaction to recommend I&I. I too wish he had gone further, but apparently he already offended the “keepers of the truth” that seem to police our denomination. Perhaps now that Enns is free from those constraints, he can further develop his ideas.