Is this the most central truth in the Genesis creation account?

If Genesis claims to be a scientific account, then yes, it would contain scientific errors.  But Genesis does not claim to be a scientific account, so no, it does not contain errors.  

Genesis is divine revelation communicated to humanity.  Any type of communication is useless if it doesn't actually achieve it's intent of communicating, and we're talking about an eternal, infinite transcendent all-powerful Being communicating to puny, finite humans.  By definition, anything communicated to us has to be "dumbed down" to our level.  This is even true with humans.  How much more then must it be true in a finite-infinite relationship?

*We really don't spend enough time contemplating this.  We should have no illusions about this.  Even when science teachers teach "accurate" science to students there is no way we can truly do so.  We always have to "dumb" it down and summarize and generalize and simplify and analogize.  If we tried to communicate true, perfect, accurate knowledge it would be over their heads and confuse them and be useless to them....And then we will have failed as teachers because we failed to communicate the information to them in ways they could understand.

*We (modern society) truly are under this illusion and think we are so smart and intelligent, when we're not.  We say Genesis can't have inaccurate statements about the world based on our illusion of what we're so sure constitutes an accurate statement that is inaccurate itself!

Even if God gave us our very own Genesis account today for modern times it would still have to be dumbed down to our level in order to communicate anything useful to us because the full, complete truth would be over our heads and beyond our finite comprehension.  

*In other words, it really doesn't matter how "accurate" we make it, there would STILL always be someone complaining that it's not completely accurate or not accurate enough.  Does that make God a liar?  No, absolutely not.  It makes God a great commuicator--the best! 

*For example, imagine if in our very own Genesis account for modern times, God included scientifically accurate statements about light and how it reflects/bounces off shiny surfaces and how light bends/refracts when it travels from one medium like air into another medium like water, and how light waves bend around corners and edges of small openings (aka diffraction).  Any educated person who's even had the most rudimentary science education would appreciate the scientific accuracy of these statements.  In fact, this is basic scientific knowledge that we teach from elementary all the way up to and including upper division level university courses (I remember my physics classes well).  

And all the Christian apologists of the world would lift up our modern Genesis account as an exemplar par excellence of perfect and true divine revelation from God Himself.....until someone points out that it's statements about the world are entirely false and erroneous.  But faithful adherents would say that's impossible because that would make God a liar and giver of false information, so it MUST mean something else.  They would then resort to all sorts of mental gymnastics and creative ways to convince themselves that the account means something different from what it actually says.

You see, light waves do not bounce off surfaces nor do they bend through mediums.  Those are entirely false statements.  But how else would you have us explain it?  As a scientist, I know that light waves don't actually bend or bounce, but I also know of no other way to say it other than reflection is where light waves bounce off and refraction is where light bends.  Does that make me a liar?  I would hope you say, no, it doesn't, and that it simply reflects human limitations in language and understanding and is the only way I can communicate factually accurate information (that ironically isn't truly factually accurate!).

*You see, we really don't take time to consider these things and the ramifications of what "perfect" and "without error"---what statements like that really mean.  How perfect does it have to be?  Serious question.  How technically accurate does it have to be to qualify as "perfect" or will even our best technical use of our imperfect language still fall short?  Where does one draw the line?  Seriously, please tell me.  Is God a liar for not accurately explaining the detailed complexities of what actually causes light refraction and reflection at the quantum level?

So does the Bible contain errors? IF it was meant to communicate scientifically accurate information, then yes.  But how could anyone say this?  Well, because it would be true.  For example, just like we talk today, the Bible describes the sun as rising and setting, but this is a scientifically inaccurate statement.  The sun does not actually rise and set.  Now you may protest that we all know the Bible is not actually claiming the sun does this and that we understand what's being said.  AND THAT IS PRECISELY MY POINT.  WE UNDERSTAND.  We understand that that's not the point.  Such statements are not intended to communicate scientific knowledge, and quite frankly it would look a little ridiculous if it did: "And then Abraham rose early in the morning after the earth had completed a rotation on it's axis...."   

And then all the "smart" people argue over how to solve the "problem" of the Bible's supposed "erroneous" description of reality, while the rest of us understand that the "smart" people are COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT of what the Bible's trying to teach us.  Why can we see this so clearly with verses like that about the rising/setting sun, and fail to see that Genesis is no different by communicating divine revelation to people in Bible times in terms that they could understand just as He would have to do the same for us.

*Thus, as I said: OECs/YECs don't even miss the forest through the trees.  They're in the wrong forest altogether, arguing over the wrong things, and completely missing the point of what God is trying to actually teach us in Genesis.

*And honestly there's no point in continuing to argue the point, because doing so is just keeping us from moving forward and actually looking at what God is trying to teach us in Genesis, which will be a true blessing to everyone if we can just get over our misplaced hang ups..  In fact, that's what I think I'll do.  I think I will start a new thread that goes through Genesis step-by-step.

After Steve looked at John Walton, I decided to do the same and I’m glad I did. I now see where you are coming from, and after seeing your very emotional defense of all things John Walton I can see there’s no point in debating with you over it. Not trying to be condescending, it’s just that I can see what I suspected from the beginning, that you had an end destination in mind and were trying to pull me and others to it, and I can see that I was correct to give no quarter to the ideas you were espousing. As far as this John Walton is concerned, your hero worship is misplaced.

Nice....You mistake passion for emotionalism and obviously didn't even try to understand my points, but hey that's your choice.  And your comments actually are condescending and insulting and just plain inaccurate (but no problem, I can take it).  I'm also well aware of all the negative things said about Walton and how he is misrepresented.  People hear "buzz words" and then fly off the handle with knee-jerk reactions and don't actually listen to what's being said and then throw out the baby with the bathwater.  My statement about Walton remains true nonetheless.  But you may go on believing what you want.  I have no interest in changing your opinion.  In fact, if you had carefully read what I wrote you would have noticed I said I don't agree with everything Walton says either--which is true.  There are things he says I flat out disagree with.  Your comment about hero worship is false and uncalled for, but I will chalk that up to both of us getting worked up, like I did when I erroneously made a similar comment to you about Ken Ham, which you corrected me on.  So, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.  I will also extend grace to you on the other things you say as well, understanding and recognizing that you are only doing what you think is right.  And as regards the rest, there has been no build up or nefarious plan to secretly mislead or trick people on anything.  When I first joined this group, I was upfront and made my position known on everything I could think of.  But apparently you didn't read my "To post or not to post?" thread where I made my positions plain.  We are both followers and believers of Christ saved by His blood so these are important issues, but they still aren't salvation-issues, so it's OK for us to disagree and most importantly these things should  not cause divisions or any hard feelings.  So no hard feelings on this end, and I'm sure there are none on your side either.  I will continue to speak what I know to be true and you will continue doing the same and we will simply have to agree to disagree.

   Certainly no hard feelings on my part. If I could offer some advice, you shouldn’t assume people who disagree with you don’t understand you. I understand your comments, they are not over my head. I assume the same is true for others here who have not agreed with you. I would especially consider what Ham said about the pride of intellectualism that can easily be tied to this doctrine of Waltons, and with your educational and occupational background, could wind up being an issue for you.

Well let's just make this easy then.  If I worship Walton then you worship Ken Ham.  And if you can show me where in the Bible it says that saying Genesis is a not a scientific description of Creation is denying the teaching of Scripture, then I will recant and change my statement.

Wayne Grudem said that John Walton was a leading proponent of Theistic Evolution in this talk. Listen for 2 minutes before he mentions John Walton. [When the video starts he is describing Theistic Evolution. Not his own views but the view he is critiquing].

   I already told you I don’t even like Ken Ham.

   And all you mean by saying Genesis 1 is not a scientific description is that it is not true.

Both Wayne Grudem and John Walton are top-notch scholars worthy of our respect.  They are fallible imperfect humans just like anyone, but we would be foolish and unwise to ignore what either of them has to say, because they are learned scholars and both committed Christians.  That doesn't mean they're perfect but they are going to be right on a lot more things in the Bible than we are.  That doesn't mean we go in with blinders.  That doesn't mean we don't pray and ask for the Holy Spirit's guidance.  We still have to be discerning.  But we would be foolish to jettison everything. Chew the fruit, spit out the seeds.  I do not rely on any single scholar or Bible reference or commentary but multiple one's in addition to seeking God first on any matter.  I find myself agreeing with both Walton and Grudem on more things than I disagree.  But there are still things that I disagree with about them both.

I will also take a man at his word when he states his position.  If Walton has personally and publicly identified as a theistic evolutionist, then that's news to me, but if he has then I will update my view.  To my knowledge he hasn't.  People will call him an evolutionist, because he does not see any problem with a Christian accepting consensus scientific views on evolution and the age of earth--he doesn't see any conflict between the two NOT because he compromises or adapts Scripture to evolution but because he says Genesis is not a modern scientific account so the two have nothing to do with each other (except where science denies the theological truths taught in Genesis).  Yes, I already know there are people here who will disagree with that and some will see it as no different than being an theistic evolution, but I would disagree with that, because there is a difference between proponents of theistic evolution and what Walton is saying.  But you know, I don't care to split hairs at this point, so call him whatever you want.

But that still would not change the fact that he is still a respected evangelical OT scholar.  And I definitely would make a point of rejecting any claim that he interprets Genesis within an "evolutionary framework" and therefore we shouldn't listen to anything he has to say.  That is unequivocally false--he employs sound exegesis like any trustworthy Bible scholar, and absolutely does not interpet things within an "evolutionary framework."  He interprets within a correct historical context Ancient Near East framework just like every OT scholar does.

But I still disagree with him.  I think he goes too far with his functional ontology.  But as Christians we can still learn from him.  Just like we can learn from Wayne Grudem.  Unless Wayne Grudem knows something I don't know (and for some reason I can connect to the forum but I'm currently unable to view the video)--unless he knows something different then I disagree with Wayne Grudem's assessment.

But if we jettison entirely then we'll have to reject what EVERYONE says, because when do any of us every fully agree with anyone.  Even with major disagreements that still doesn't mean there's no value. 

I don't agree with everything Grudem says either but I agree with the majority of what he says even things that people here will likely disagree with about Grudem.

*Gurdem is a charismatic who believes that miracles and healings and prophecy and words of knowledge and speaking in tongues--that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today.  That will likely rub some people here the wrong way.  But if you jettison the whole person entirely, then that would be unfortunate and you would miss out on what they both do have to offer.

I will agree that a person can be right about a great many things and still be wrong or in error about a few things. Most errors are mixed in with many truths. 

False.  When I say Genesis is not a modern scientific account, what I'm trying to say is that Genesis is not a modern scientific account.  When I say Genesis is not a scientific account that is not code for me saying "it's not true." That is a mischaracterization of my position and would be putting words into my mouth.

I think the more important thing is that we recognise the Genesis Creation account as Historical Narrative. As describing events that really happened the way they are said to have happened. While, not describing anything that is contrary to science, it is not a modern Scientific account because this would be an anachronistic way of describing these writings, as modern science did not exist at the time of Moses writing. Sometimes people say "The Bible isn't a Scientific textbook" and while that is true, it's not a helpful statement because the meaning of the statement is ambiguous. 
Bible scholars agree that the Bible is written in a number of Genres and 'Modern Scientific Account' isn't one of them. Does that mean that the Genesis Account is at odds with Science? No it doesn't.
Generally, when someone says "The Bible isn't a Scientific Textbook" what they mean is "You can't rely on the Bible to tell us what really happened because Modern Science, such as Cosmology hadn't yet been developed."

I like how you state things ST and I agree with your explanation here about modern science.  As you say, Genesis 1 is not a scientific account because that would be anachronistic.  However, I wouldn't say that's ambiguous or not helpful.  I'd say more commonly people just tend to forget this and keep trying to make Genesis 1 a scientific account.

Is Genesis 1 at odds with science?  I would say no, and only when we make it so by trying to turn it into a book of scientific statements.  When people do that, then yes, they (needlessly) put Genesis 1 at odds with science.

I wouldn't call it historical narrative either.  I'd say your later statement sums it up best: "Bible scholars agree that the Bible is written in a number of genres..."  I'd say that aptly applies to Genesis 1-2:3 as well.  Or, alternatively, we could say that Genesis 1 has a uniqueness about it that doesn't neatly fall into a specific genre.  It certainly has poetic, hymnic qualities, but yet it's not a poem or hymn and it also contains prose.  I like Wenham's description: Genesis 1 is *exalted prose*.  I'd sum it up as follows:

• Genesis 1 is *exalted prose* (or, *elevated narrative*)

• Genesis 1 presents ancient cosmology.

• Genesis 1 has far more in common with Ancient Near East cosmologies of ancient Egypt, Babylon, Sumerians, Akkadians, etc. then either has with modern cosmology or the modern world, itself. 

• This does NOT mean Genesis 1 is derived from any of those--and, indeed, although liberal scholars used to argue that Genesis 1 came from the Babylonian Enuma Elish, that has been thoroughly discredited.  Instead, it's more accurate to say that Genesis 1 shows knowledge of Ancient Near East culture and their pagan cosmologies, but is dependent on no specific one, similar to how most people in our culture know of Darwin's book the Origin of Species and the ideas in that book, even though most have never actually read it.

• In fact, not only does Genesis 1 show great familiarity with Ancient Near East cultural ideas and pagan cosmologies, Genesis 1 is an anti pagan cosmology polemic that directly repudiates and discredits those pagan cosmologies.

• There is also evidence that Genesis 1-2:3 presents the creation of the cosmos in the 7-day framework of a temple inauguration ceremony.  The evidence for this is strengthened when we expand and look at Genesis 1-3 together.  The garden of Eden account makes numerous connections with the tabernacle/temple, giving Adam a priestly/Levitical type function, and relating Eden to the "Holy of Hollies."

• Some think the literary structure of Genesis 1-2:3 with it's chiastic/palistrophic structure, and repeated, stylized use of heptads (i.e., the sacred 7, and multiples of the number 7), as well as contextual elements in the passage itself---some think Genesis 1-2:3 could have also had a liturgical use in ancient Israel; a sort of "creation/temple-liturgy."

*I remember the first commentary on Genesis I read many moons ago.  I was so excited because I knew that finally I had something that was going to answer all my questions about the creation-evolution debate.  I was so disappointed because it didn't talk about the creation-evolution debate at all.  This was my first taste of what it means when Bible scholars say the Genesis creation account is not a scientific account.

Creation-as-Temple-Building-and-Work-as-Liturgy-in-Genesis-1-31.pdf

God Dwells Among Us: Expanding Eden to the Ends of the Earth

The garden of Eden as a primordial temple or sacred space for humankind

Patterns, Parallels, and Poetics in Genesis 1 pdf

I believe that Christ-followers, (Christians) should read and understand the Genesis creation account in the same way that Jesus read and understood it, as Historical Narrative, that describes real people, real events in real time. Any other understanding, reading or interpretation that is different to the way Jesus and the apostles read it is wrong. 
That's why I'm opposed to John Walton's reading of the Creation account. In saying the Creation account is not a scientific account, in a culture where Science is highly respected as the most reliable source of knowledge, seems to also suggest that the Creation account is not Historical Narrative, and instead is poetry or allegory. I strongly disagree.

   That’s a very good point, Steve.

• Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus read Genesis 1 as "historical narrative."  You taken liberties in an attempt to try to prove your point.  Jesus spoke of how God created everything and how God created humans "male and female."  I believe that too.  Historical narrative is a type of genre.  Jesus made no comments about the genre of Genesis 1.  Just because something contains facts--that's not what makes a text historical narrative.  Facts about the world can also appear in poetry as well as prose.

• Walton's irrelevant.  None of my links are Walton links.

• The facts are the facts.  Genesis 1 does not fit historical narrative (like Genesis 12 does), but nor does it fit poetry.  Genesis 1 contains BOTH prose and poetic elements.  That's simply a fact.  OT scholars refer to it as *elevated narrative/prose*---in fact, this is a consensus position--because that's the best description of Genesis 1, and this has been recognized for a long time.

• NO OT scholar I know of says Genesis 1 is allegory.  Nor do I.  Allegory and poetry are not the same thing.

• Poetry CAN contain historical facts.  Prose CAN contain non-historical and figurative elements.  So, it is a BIG mistake to equate poetry with fiction and prose with fact. 

• Maybe when others say Genesis is not a scientific account that's code for non-historical.  But that's not how I use it.  When I say it's not a scientific account I mean it's not a scientific account.  It can't be just like you noted: that would be anachronistic.

• Importantly, even if Genesis 1 is historical narrative, it's STILL NOT a scientific account.

* Genesis 1 has more in common with Ancient Near East cosmologies than anything else.  That is the closest corollary.  That is a simple fact.  

This is William Lane Craig's critique of John Walton's take on the Genesis Creation Account

I like WLC, but unfortunately this is not one of his better moments.  He misunderstands Walton and shows a lack of knowledge and understanding about OT exegesis, which I suppose we could forgive him for since he's not a Bible scholar; except for the the fact that it spreads misinformation.  For example, the cosmos as "temple" is not some esoteric fringe idea that Walton came up with.  The connections between Genesis 1-3 and the temple/tabernacle are well-known and recognized by Bible scholars.  Unfortunately, WLC who is usually pretty good at doing his homework, shows he has not done so here and is out of his depth.  

As I've said, I don't agree with everything Walton says and think he presses his functional ontology too far.  However, he's not wrong when he says that in Bible times it was the ordering, and functional, organizing aspects of God's work in creation that was considered most important, and not the origin of matter and material, physical things themselves.  People of course believed God created everything (and Genesis teaches that) but that was a given that no one questioned (and more of a "duh, well of course God created everything").  We care more about material origins than they did and unfortunately we bring these misplaced expectations to Genesis 1. 

One of the clearest indications of this is that Genesis 1:2 clearly teaches that the earth and physical matter already existed before the first day of creation.  The six days of creation are mainly focused on bringing order to this formless, empty chaotic state of matter that already existed by organizing it and filling it with created things, and separating, and dividing and gathering, and very importantly....naming/calling which is very significant (God called it "day," "night," "sky," "sea,"..."Adam,"...."Abram" to "Abraham," Jacob to "Israel," etc., etc., etc.---naming was extremely important and significant).  

A lot of these elements are lost on us today, causing us to focus on the wrong things.

Yes, at Genesis 1:2 "the earth (not in it's final form) and physical matter already exist but NOT before the first day of Creation.
It would be more accurate to say that the verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1 describe a 2 step progression:
Step 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Step 2: 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Both steps 1 and 2 occurring on Day One of Creation.

I think Walton is wrong in saying that the Creation account isn't describing God bringing the Universe and everything in it into existence but rather assigning everything (that exists already) it's function.

I think WLC is right in his critique here, even though his speciality is Christian Apologetics and Philosophy and he (as you rightly pointed out) is NOT an Old Testament scholar/professor as Walton is. 
Thanks for exposing me (and this group to these ideas) even though I consider them to be false and an incorrect reading of the Creation account. 

I think we will have to agree to disagree, but that doesn't mean I won't be opposed to any further attempts to promote Walton's interpretation of the Genesis Creation Account.

• There is uncertainty about the relationship between v. 1, v. 2 and v. 3, I will grant you that.  Four different possibilities in fact.

• However, one of the most important evidences for Hebrew narrative (plus, the parallel structure of Genesis 1 itself), makes the suggestion that v. 2 is part of Day 1 extremely improbable.

• V. 2 is in the *qatal* form, which in Hebrew narrative is used to indicate the state of things prior to the initiation of a subsequent series of consecutive actions, which start in v. 3 as indicated by the shift to *wayyiqtol* verbs.  This qatal (describing the state of things) to wayyiqtol (subsequent actions to follow) progression is an important feature of Hebrew narrative.  Again, read the blog posts when you get the chance, which explains this in detail.

*But even more obvious (for non-Hebrew readers) and the decisive argument against the v.2-part-of-day1 theory is the parallel structure of Genesis 1 itself.  EVERY Day of Creation begins with "And God said..." and ends with "And there was evening and there was morning the ___ day."  The theory is simply not supported by the clear "And God said"---"And there was evening and there was morning" framing for each day of creation.  It is reading into Genesis 1.

*Correction: perhaps it's splitting hairs, but people seem to always mistake Walton for saying he denies that Genesis makes any claims about material creation, when, in fact, he acknowledges along with everyone that Genesis 1 teaches that God materially created the universe and everything in it. He certainly says the creation account primarily focuses on functional ontology, but he never claimed that it's functional exclusively.  People always seem to misunderstand him on this.

**Regardless, I'm not here to promote Walton's view.  I'm here to promote an accurate understanding of Genesis 1 that is faithful and true to God's word, and that can be done without any reference to Walton at all.

**We (modern Christians) really do miss out on a lot of the truths that Genesis is focusing on because of the modern mindset we bring to it.

**The good news is that most of the truths that Genesis 1 is focusing on and trying to get us to see have little to do with the creation-evolution debate.  In other words, regardless of whether a Christian is YEC or OEC or TE or what have you---the theological truths stay the same for everyone...The only real barrier here is distrust towards me, and people thinking I'm trying to push some "false" teaching or "heresy" when I'm not.  True enough, I think the OEC/YEC debate is misplaced and focused on the wrong thing---missing the forest through the trees---but the overarching, salient truths that Genesis teaches--I don't see how they really threaten any Christian.  To the contrary, they're a blessing and divine revelation about God, His will and divine purpose: i.e., one can receive them and STILL be a YEC.

***You've already proven this: You recognized the important theological truths Genesis 1 presents as an anti-pagan polemic to the ancient world of the time.  You recognized this...while still remaining firmly committed to YEC...These are the types of theological truths I'm most interested in sharing.  Timeless theological truths that don't require anyone to abandon a YEC position (In hindsight, maybe I should have led with this.  Then, perhaps there'd be less distrust and suspicion.  Oh well)

***Importantly, this thread started with a question about Walton's statement that the central truth of Genesis 1 concerns "God's presence."  Even if we reject that it is the "central truth," even if we reject Walton's functional ontology---the presence of God during (and after) creation---His personal involvement in His creation and with us (as opposed to the impersonal pagan gods who found humans an annoyance)....We don't need Walton to recognize the biblical truth of that.  

***Even better: it's a biblical truth that all Christians can recognize that doesn't threaten any of the many different views that Christians have about Genesis 1, and that all us can promote.

Sorry, I just remembered I forgot to answer this.

• On Day 2, God creates a raqia (variously translated as "firmament" "expanse" "vault") to separate the waters below the firmament from the waters above the firmament.  God calls the firmament "sky/heaven". 

• On Day 4 God sets the sun, moon, and stars *in* the raqia divider between the water above and the waters below

• On Day 5, God creates birds that fly *across* (the face or surface) of the raqia (from vantage point of human observer, birds seem to fly across or in front of blue sky which seems like a background behind flying birds from earth-bound observer)

The Bible is clear that the raqia separates the waters below the raqia from the waters above the raqia and is very clear that God sets the sun, moon and stars *in* the raqia that separates the water above from the waters below.

If the waters above the raqia is a pre-Flood water vapor canopy around the earth as many YECs believe, then the raqia in which God sets the sun, moon, and stars would have to be below that (i.e., in the earth's atmosphere below the pre-Flood water vapor canopy)