Creation Debate: John Walton vs. David Hall

Jeff Downs just passed along the following news:

News Release

Worldview Forum

“In the Beginning:” Interpreting Creation in Genesis

Tuesday, February 2, 7:00pm Eastern

Malone University is pleased to offer its first Worldview Forum event for 2010 – “In the Beginning”: Interpreting Creation in Genesis on February 2, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Sanctuary of the Johnson Center for Worship and the Fine Arts.

Proponents are David Hall, Ph.D., senior pastor of Midway Presbyterian Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and John H. Walton, Ph.D., professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College. Moderator is D. Nathan Phinney, Ph.D., Interim Dean of the School of Theology and associate professor of Biblical Studies at Malone University.

David Hall, Ph.D., is senior pastor of Midway Presbyterian Church. He also is executive director of Calvin 500 and General editor of the Calvin 500 series. He received his Ph.D. in Christian intellectual thought from Whitefield Theological Seminary and is the author of numerous works about John Calvin as well as Did God Create in Six Days? and Holding Fast to Creation.


John H. Walton, Ph.D., is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and also taught at Moody Bible Institute for 20 years. He received his Ph.D. in Hebrew and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion and is author or coauthor of more than 20 books including The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, Genesis: The Covenant Comes to Life (Bringing the Bible to Life) and The Old Testament Today: A Journey from Original Meaning to Contemporary.

This event will be available in the following formats:

  1. A podcast available a couple days after the event. Go to the university website and click on the Worldview Forum quicklink to find the podcast.
  2. DVD format
  3. Live podcast if the technical team is able to work out the details.
  4. Audio format, downloadable from the website

For more information, please contact Sandy Johnson at 330.471.8271 or sjohnson[at]malone[dot]edu



51 thoughts on “Creation Debate: John Walton vs. David Hall

  1. Well, at first I was totally stoked, but I don;t know David Hall from Adam (no pun intended), so do you know of anything about him? I hope this goes well, because I have been waiting to hear the first rebuttal to Walton’s new book.

  2. Hmmm. Walton’s arguments are pretty convincing and he can even grant that the day is 24 hours. I’ll be interested to see how it goes.

  3. Justin: I don’t anything about Hall but I’m sure if Walton’s willing to debate him then he’s up for the task. I’d like to be able to have some of the guys at my church listen to this one, especially since we’ve been forced to watch Ken Ham DVDs recently.

    Bryan: Me too.

  4. El Bryan,

    Walton’s perspective, which is just a variety of the mainstream ancient Near Eastern perspective, changed forever the way I understood Genesis. As I read his commentary, there were numerous “Ah-ha!” moments. Although I don’t think he takes his hermeneutic to its logical conclusion (i.e., he believes that Genesis 1 only speaks to giving material creation function, whereas I believe Genesis 1 speak also to material creation, although the emphasis is decidedly functional), I count him as one of my mentors in the creation/evolution debate. Ironically, he’s not an evolutionist (as far as I know), and I’m now a former young-earth creationist-cum-die-hard evolutionist in addition to being a die-hard Jesus follower!

  5. Jason: I almost said, “God Saints!” but then I came to my good senses. ;-)

    Mike: Am I to understand that you’re a theistic evolutionist? If so, is there one book you could recommend to me that I could give to 6-day-creationist friends, that might get them to think more about their position and yours?

  6. Nick,

    Yes, I’m a theistic evolutionist, but I prefer the label “evolutionary creationist,” which was first coined (I believe) by Calvin College professor Howard J. Van Till.

    The best 1-2 punch for young-earth creationists are (1) John Walton’s “The Lost World of Genesis One” and (2) Denis Lamoureux’s “Evolutionary Creation.” (Denis also wrote a condensed version of EC titled “I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution” which your wallet might prefer over EC.)

  7. Jeff:

    Ironically, as a evolutionary creationist/theistic evolutionist, I, too, believe that the days of Genesis 1 are, in fact, six consecutive 24-hour days. But that structure has much more to do with the influence of Egyptian temple dedication texts on the author of Genesis 1 than it does on the actual method/order by which God created the cosmos.

  8. Not sure how interesting that is…its not to me, since that would have not bearing on how Gen. should be interpreted. And I would assume that Dr. Hall would agree with me on that point.

    Creation evolutionist is like say Christian-atheist. The two terms simple do not go together.

  9. Jeff: Gotcha. Thanks for the info.

    Oh, and I’m sure you’re aware of this, but there was a time when Christians were called atheists (for denying the gods of the Greco-Roman pantheons).

    Mike: I’ve always been partial the Gap Theory myself, which also allows for 6 consecutive 24-hour days.

  10. Nick:

    Good point on Greeks considering Christians atheists. I had forgotten that!

    As for the Gap Theory, if you give Walton and Lamoureux a good read, you can easily dispense with it. I think, after consuming the works of those two authors (who, while disagreeing on certain points, compliment each others’ arguments), you’ll see how much more “natural” the EC position is than the Gap Theory. I commend the attempt at reconciling the fossil record with the Bible by those who subscribe to the Gap Theory, but I honestly think the extent to which the Gap Theory tries to reconcile the Bible with science is unnecessary.

    In addition to Walton and Lamoureux, I would also highly recommend Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks. I don’t necessarily agree with all of their conclusions, but a thoughtful synthesis of their work produces much fruit.

    God bless,


  11. Mike: To be honest I’ve only favored it for theological reasons (i.e., I think it makes sense of Satan’s fall and such) rather than scientific ones (i.e., the fossil record, etc.). I’ve never been locked into it, but then again, I’ve never thought that taking a firm position on any single creation theory was that important. It’s always been a secondary issue for me.

    And it just so happens that I recently got both Enns’ and Sparks’ books and I’ll be starting them shortly.

  12. Personally, I think Enns is overrated. I haven’t read Sparks but I did hear him lecture on the topic of his book and wasn’t that impressed. Both seem to be stuck between Evangelicalism and more mainline Christianity (not yet liberal) and it’s kind of weird. It’s like they want to practice regular critical biblical scholarship but something is holding them back and keeping them from going all the way. That’s just my general impression.

    From what I remember reading Walton’s commentary on Genesis he doesn’t actually take a hard position on the age of the earth or how long creation took. He just tries to show that Genesis 1-3 had something else in mind other than giving an historical account of the beginning of the world and that its purpose was more theological and liturgical.

  13. El Bryan:

    You’re right about Walton’s commentary. But Walton has shifted considerably since that commentary was written, although I too believe that he still doesn’t take his own hermeneutic far enough. (Lamoureux “finishes” the job Walton started.)

    Walton has a monograph on Genesis 1 due out soon (was supposed to be last year) that I’m looking forward to reading.

  14. Bryan: I didn’t actually become interested in Enns until Beale wrote a book in response to Enns’. Then I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. Like I said about Sparks, I’ve heard mixed reviews, but it’s the bad ones that made me want to read him for myself.

  15. Stumbled onto this blog and thought you might like to know that “debate” is probably not quite the right word for the format. Each proponent will have about 25 minutes to speak about his view and will be able to ask a question of the other proponent. The remaining hour will be devoted to questions from the audience. All will be recorded for podcast. We expect a thoughtful conversation from these gentlemen.

    For those asking about Hall, he is a PCA pastor who, in addition to the works noted on the bio, also contributed to “The Genesis Debate,” a book which traces the views of Gen 1 investigated by the PCA in its 2000 Creation Study Committee Report. He’s also done a good deal of original research on the opinions of individual Westminster divines regaring Gen 1, a potentially important topic for PCA folks trying to sort out this question.


  16. This debate was so disappointing… Walton could have said so much more and Hall threw out the typical and condescending, “I’m a young earth creationist because I love my Bible and take God at His Word” ad hominem/nonsequitur (whatever your take is) dribble… ech… my expectations were just too high.

  17. Greg: That’s a shame. So I guess it’s probably not worth me taking the time to listen to it. Oh well. There’s plenty of other stuff out there to occupy my time.

    Jeff: Did you hear/see the debate?

  18. What interests me, and we were discussing this last night in class, is the how the rest of the Bible interpretes the creation account. It is pretty clear in other passages that deal the Gen. account, that the events of creation are instantaneous fiat acts of God.

    I also can not get around the fact that if you do take Gen. 1 at face value, the days are normal days. The question needs to be address, if God wanted it to read as a six-day creation, how would it read differently then it does?

  19. What is taking Genesis at face value? Does it mean God spoke Hebrew when he created the world? Should I take that at face value. Was there actually an audible voice speaking in Hebrew saying “Let there be light…”?

    How would it read differently if we weren’t supposed to read it that way?

  20. Jeff: I don’t know about the audio. I’m sure you’ll know about that before I do.

    As for reading Gen. 1 at face value I guess the question is whether or not face value to us is the same as face value to its original audience. And like I’ve said before, I don’t think it would read any differently if God intended 6 days. The text can just as easily be interpreted that way as any other way. That’s the problem, it lends itself to various interpretations.

    Bryan: Those are valid questions. I’m interested in how Jews living 4500 years ago would have understood Genesis 1. Would they have thought that God spoke in Hebrew? That an audible voice literally spoke? Or would they have understood Moses to be taking certain literary liberties in describing creation?

  21. interested in how Jews living 4500 years ago would have understood Genesis 1.

    Simply look at the rest of scripture. It’s clear how other writers understand this, and we should understand it they way they did.

  22. Does anyone here have a problem with God actually speaking? Of course, Gen. doesn’t say he spoke in Hebrew. But he spoke to adam, Noah, Moses and others, did he not?

  23. Jeff: Could you be a bit more specific? Where in the rest of Scripture do we see that other writers understood the creative days of Genesis 1 as 6 24-hour days?

    And the problem isn’t with God speaking but what the author meant by God speaking. At face value we’d think he meant that God spoke audibly in Hebrew, wouldn’t we? His words are recorded in Hebrew right? And when we think of speaking we automatically think of audible speech, don’t we? But I know when God speaks to me it isn’t audible yet at the same time I couldn’t describe it in any way other than a way that would make people think of audible speech in English.

    Mike: Thanks for the link.

  24. Moses wrote in Hebrew, doesn’t mean God spoke in Hebrew. But, since God is disclosing himself, I don’t necessarily have a problem with God speaking in Hebrew, to those who speak and hear Hebrew. Again, he spoke to Adam – telling him what particullar tree to eat, he spoke to Cain, Noah, etc. etc.

    So, we shouldn’t have a problem with God speaking in audible voice. Regarding God speaking to you; you should know that God doesn’t speak audibly any longer (not saying he can’t). We probably disagree on how God communicates today, so let’s at least stay out of that discussion, for now.

    Also, I never said God created in 6 24hrs, and I’m not sure if that is necessarily the position of most young-earth creationist (we don’t know how many hours the first three days were). What we can say, is they were short periods of times, and they were normal days. Anyway, here are some passages to look at (this is from a class outline):

    How rest of Bible views Creation
    1. Generally
    a. Prima Facie approach, Psalm 33:6, 9; Psalm 148:1-6; John 1:1-3

    b. Time indicator, “From the beginning,” Matt. 19:4; Mk. 10:6; 2 Peter 3:4
    c. Unique term—bara (Heb) ktizo (Gr)
    (1) Four times Gen. 1:1-2:3
    (2) Over 15 times to refer to creation
    d. Yatzar and plasso—God’s forming various things in creation

    2. Specifically—each day
    a. Day 1—2 Cor. 4:6; Amos 4:13; Isa. 45:7; Jer. 33:20, 21; Ps. 74:16; Job 38: 19, 24

    b. Day 1—Psalm 102:25, 26; Isa. 40:22; 42:5; Job 37:18; Psalm 146:6

    c. Day 3
    (1) Separation of land and water—2 Peter 3:5; Psalm 104:5-9; Job 38:4-11; 74:17; Isa. 45:18; Ps. 65:6, 7; 136:6; Jer. 5:22; Ps. 24:2; 33:7; 95:4, 5

    (2) Vegetation—Ps. 104:14, 30; Job 38:27; Ps. 104:14; 147:8

    d. Day 4—Ps. 33:6, 9; 74:16, 17; 136:7-9; 8:3; Isa. 40:26

    e. Day 5—Ps. 104:24-26; Ps. 8:8

    f. Day 6—
    (1) Land animals—Jer. 27:5; Ps 8:7

    (2) 2. Man—Gen.5:1, 2;4:32; 6:7; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:8-10; 1 Tim. 2:13

    A further published study on how the rest of the bible views creation would be important. From what I understand, there isn’t much.

  25. Jeff: Yeah, God spoke, but at “face value” we’d think he spoke audibly and in Hebrew since we read the words in Hebrew. We’re never told that God’s words were translated into Hebrew by Moses or anyone else. Likewise, it appears that you do think he at least spoke audibly since you said that he doesn’t speak audibly anymore (and you’re right, we’d disagree on God speaking today).

    I’m confused, what did you mean by “normal days” above and “6 day creation” if not 6 24-hour days? What’s a normal day? I appreciate the references but I’m not seeing how they support any one interpretation over another. As I see it they make sense with a 6 “normal day” creation as much as they do the day/age theory or gap theory. Perhaps they don’t square with evolution and that’s what you have in mind but none of them tell us anything about how long the days were.

  26. Yeah, God spoke, but at “face value” we’d think he spoke audibly and in Hebrew since we read the words in Hebrew.

    It is an assumption (not saying it isn’t a good one) to say that God spoke in Hebrew, say for example, to Adam.

    The point being, someone above was being critical of the fact to take the text at face value, we would have to say that God spoke. Well, yeah, that is they way would should understand the text: God spoke, and it came into being.

    I would say, at this point, there were 24hr days, but I know some would say we don’t know how many hours (24, 36) were in the days 1-3. That is another issue at this point, which I don’t hold. But, it is certainly appropriate to simple speak of the days of creation as normal days

  27. Jeff: Good enough. On a related subject, I wonder if God spoke before creation. I’d assume that he did (how could the Father, Son, and Spirit not speak to each other from all eternity?) but then I wonder why those words weren’t creative. Or were they in some way?

  28. “The point being, someone above was being critical of the fact to take the text at face value, we would have to say that God spoke. Well, yeah, that is they way would should understand the text: God spoke, and it came into being.”

    Actually the point I was making was that taking the text at face value means reading it as God audibly speaking “yehî ´ôr” (that was the best transliteration I could come up with) as the first thing he spoke to the creation since that is what the text actually says at face value. It’s not an assumption since it is right there in the Bible just the same as the 7 actual days of creation (and rest). My point is that appealing to “face value” can be a tricky thing.

  29. Mr. Libre, you asked What is taking Genesis at face value? Does it mean God spoke Hebrew when he created the world? Should I take that at face value. Was there actually an audible voice speaking in Hebrew saying “Let there be light…”? How would it read differently if we weren’t supposed to read it that way?

    My answer is yes. Why would we take it to mean something else. It appears from your question that you are being critical, as if it simply crazy to think that God spoke in a audible voice “Let it be.”

    It is quite clear that God speaks in a audible voice all over the place (Old and New Testament).

    just the same as the 7 actual days of creation

    Actually, it is six days of creation and one day of rest, but I’m sure that was simply a slip of the finger.

    So again, I don’t believe it is tricky to say that we should “read the text at face value” (unless there is a good reason (biblically) not to do so.

    So the question continues to remain unanswered, if God wanted to communicate to us that he created in six normal days, how different would the text be, from what we already have?

  30. Jeff:

    You keep missing the point even though it’s right there. I’m not just bringing up the point that God spoke audibly in creation. You are saying the first audible words God spoke to creation were Hebrew. The first language then is Hebrew? Not only is it the first language but in a sense it’s also the divine language since it is the language that God speaks (when taking the text at face value). God speaks it, the serpent speaks it, Adam and Eve speak it, everyone speaks it even before there were Hebrew people and at least up until the time of the tower of Babel. Is that what you believe since that is what it would mean to take the text at face value?

    As for the 6 days of creation and 1 day of rest, the funny thing is that I originally typed that in but then just shortened it to “7 actual days of creation (and rest)” because I didn’t think anyone would actually be petty enough to quibble with that (I was wrong) and I thought it would be understood what I was saying, so no it wasn’t a slip of the finger.

    What would be a good biblical reason for not taking something at face value which wouldn’t actually really be an extra biblical reason (such as your discomfort with it)?

  31. You are saying the first audible words God spoke to creation were Hebrew.

    This doesn’t follow at all. Just because Moses writes this in Hebrew, and let’s say it was reported to Mosis in Hebrew, doesn’t mean that God’s first words were in Hebrew.

    On the other hand, Let’s say that Hebrew was the very first spoken language, I don’t necessarily have a problem with God speaking in Hebrew since all language comes from God, and we see him dislosing himself by speaking to man. But, I believe the point above stands.

    Word are important, and in theological discussions, being specific is very important. So, Yeah, I quibble, just as you are quibbling over “face value.” It is important what face value means, or you wouldn’t have chimed in.

    What would be a good biblical reason for not taking something at face value which wouldn’t actually really be an extra biblical reason (such as your discomfort with it)?

    God resting, as if he were tired.

    Now, will you answer my question “if God wanted to communicate to us that he created in six normal days, how different would the text be, from what we already have?”

  32. Jeff:

    It does follow Jeff if you want to appeal to face value. Moses didn’t just report the gist of what God was saying. The text actually records what he said and doesn’t give any indication that it’s a translation or that what God said was beyond human language. What would lead you to believe based on what’s in the Bible that God didn’t speak Hebrew at creation and that everyone didn’t speak Hebrew before there were Hebrews (and the tower of Babel) and that Hebrew is actually THE divine language? It’s in the Bible and there doesn’t seem to be any indication that they believed otherwise. If God wanted to comunicate that he spoke in Hebrew at creation and that the divine language is Hebrew how different would the text be from what we already have?

    Face value always ends up being a useless thing to appeal to since it really only means what seems obvious to me should seem obvious to everyone. It is especially useless when you are speaking of ancient documents written in a different language and in a different culture.

    I’m sorry but trying to correct someone over not saying 6 days of creation and 1 day of rest is quibbling and it’s petty. It doesn’t add anything to the discussion. Challenging someone over their appeal to face value on the other hand is not since you have made a big deal about what something says at face value.

    Now you point to God resting as if he were tired as a good reason to not take something at face value. But I have to wonder whether reading that God rested at face value means understanding that to say that God was tired? There was no other way to read that other than God was tired? That is really how someone reading it at face value would have understood it? It couldn’t just as easily be understood as saying that God took a break from his work of creating and it had nothing to do with him being exhausted?

  33. The text actually records what he said, again, I agree God said it (that’s what I’ve be arguing), but once again, just because the text doesn’t say that God said it in a certain language, that it means that as Moses reports this years later, that God spoke in Hebrew. But, again, I don’t have a problem with God speaking in Hebrew, so that is not an issue. I can concede that point, and in fact, did in my last response.

    There was no other way to read that other than God was tired?

    Actually, the rest of the text defines “rest.” God rested “from all his work which he had done.” What work did he do; the work on the six days. That is what he rested from. So, when you read something, you need to read it in context (I’m certainly not telling you anything you don’t already know).

    Also, given the fact that the Hebrew word means cease, stop, etc. it is safe to say that God was not tired when he “rested from all his work, which He had done”

    Since you can’t (or will not) answer my one question, and I’m simply on the defensive (answering all of yours), I’m done.

    Thanks for the exchange.

  34. Jeff:
    I’m not asking whether you’ll concede that God could have spoken his first words to creation in ancient Hebrew or whether you’ll concede Hebrew could be the divine language, I’m asking if that’s what you actually believe based on reading the text at face value and also because that belief is based on the same reasoning that you’ve used in you main question to us? Do you belive that? And if you do you don’t see any problem with that belief? That would be just the same as believing (or even conceding) that the divine language has always been 21st century East Coast hip hop English (or even King James English)—since Ancient Hebrew is no different in that it’s just a particular language derived from other languages that came before it and spoken by a particular people of a particular culture at a particular time in history.

    Anyway I’m done trying to get that point across.

    Also your reply about what the Hebrew word for rest means shows that reading that God was tired was not in fact a face value reading but instead a mistaken reading that could be made by someone reading an English translation today but not by an Israelite reading it thousands of years ago. I would be interested in seeing what you thought were other actual cases where you believed there was a good biblical reason why a text shouldn’t be read at face value. Again I think the reason would actually be extrabiblical when you really examine it. I really believe this is important to note because it illustrates the problem with appealing to face value readings as necessarily normative, and also the problem of only occasionaly setting those readings aside because of supposedly biblical reasons.

    And I’m not unwilling to answer your question and in fact I’ll do so as soon as I can get on my computer (I’ve been using my iPhone). I’ve actually been looking forward to getting into that discussion. I was just trying to challenge your appeal to what you believe the Bible said at face value and why I thought your main question rested on erroneous reasoning that could also be used to argue for other obviously mistaken (or at least misguided) beliefs.

  35. Interesting discussion guys.

    Jeff: I’m curious about the pride of place some face value readings take over others. For example, you said that a good time to not read the text at face value is when it said God rested. To take that at face value would suggest that he got tired and I’d imagine that you’d give the pride of place to a verse like Psalm 121:3-4 that says that God doesn’t sleep or slumber (or any others like it). I’m curious as to why that would be though? Or to give another example: You and I both believe that before the Incarnation God did not have any physical form to speak of and it is God the Son alone who took on flesh in the Incarnation. Yet throughout the Bible we read of God’s ears, eyes, hands, finger, arms, etc. and choose to interpret them as anthropomorphisms. We give pride of place to a text like John 4:24 where Jesus says that God is Spirit. But why? How come the Mormons who read the text at face value are incorrect and we’re not? At the same time, why would we think that God spoke audibly since that’s the face value reading but we wouldn’t think that he had a physical form when that’s also the face value reading?

    Bryan: You said:

    Face value always ends up being a useless thing to appeal to since it really only means what seems obvious to me should seem obvious to everyone.

    I think that’s really the heart of the issue. To use a term like “face value” as a catchall word meaning “the way I take it” is useless. It’s meaningless to say that something should be taken at face value without first defining what exactly face value means and then asking how the original audience would have understood it. If face value is simply a woodenly literal interpretation then nobody wants to read the text that way. But if it’s taking the text the way the original audience would have took it then that’s something I think we all strive for. The problem then becomes trying to figure out how they took it.

    Like I said to Jeff in one of my earlier comments, when I talk about God speaking to me I don’t mean an audible voice, yet I can’t describe it in any way that wouldn’t make one automatically think of God speaking audibly. Other Charismatics know exactly what I’m talking about because of a shared experience. Non-Charismatics who haven’t had that experience are at a disadvantage because all they can think of is audible talking. How much more are we at a disadvantage when reading ancient writings written in different languages by people with different worldviews who lived in different cultures?

  36. Nick:
    I agree and I actually don’t have any problem with God speaking to people either audibly or inaudibly. My point was about the idea of God audibly speaking the first words to creation in Hebrew when there were no Hebrews or any people around.

    To get to your question:
    “if God wanted to communicate to us that he created in six normal days, how different would the text be, from what we already have?”

    I think the text could have been roughly the same although maybe he could have stressed more that he really cared what we believed about how long creation took. Also it might not appear so theological and liturgical especially in the way it matches up with the length of a week including a Sabbath day of rest.

    But more importantly if he wanted it to read that way he could have made the creation actually appear like it was created in only 6 days. If the world looked like it had only been around for 6000 to 10000 years and it only took about 6 days to come into existence then we probably wouldn’t have any problem with reading the Genesis 1 the way you describe.

    Let’s be honest, if the Bible says something about reality and it doesn’t really match up to what we see or know (I know we could probably go back and forth on what we mean by know but you probably get what I’m saying) then we are forced to either conclude the text of the Bible was wrong, or it had a different purpose or emphasis than to just record something factually, or we are misreading it and we need to consider other ways the text could be read.

    I know some people have a problem with this but we already do it in other ways with the Bible. An easy example is when Jesus says “and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.” We know based on experience and plenty of testing that it doesn’t mean that God will actually give us whatever we ask for if we ask in Jesus’ name. It doesn’t happen like that or else we’d all have everything we ever could want or dream of. So we figure out other ways of reading that text. Sure we could ask the question “if God wanted to communicate to us that whatever we asked for in the name of Jesus we would receive how different from the text would it be” but the it wouldn’t need to be any different, God would just have to back up that reading by giving us whatever we ask for in Jesus name.

    Hope that helps you understand my position.

  37. Bryan: I gotcha. I don’t have a problem with God speaking audibly or inaudibly either. In fact, God spoke to me audibly once and it was terrifying. I have no desire for it to happen again!

  38. So, is there any audio/video online for this debate? I looked everywhere. Malone university site shows what date it happened but no links to follow…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s