Ken Turner

John Walton's interpretation of Genesis 1 is compelling and deservedly popular, yet some scholars have doubts about the validity of his conclusions.

The disparity in defining “concordism” is clear when reading Zondervan's Four Views on the Historical Adam, where each author is using “concordism” differently.

Too many students believe in a particular viewpoint with deep passion and emotion, but are unable to articulate their own view in detail, much less any views that differ from their own.

In this excerpt from their new book, geologist Gregg Davidson and theologian Ken Turner shine a spotlight on Genesis One as theologically rich literature first and foremost.

John Walton's interpretation of Genesis 1 is compelling and deservedly popular, yet some scholars have doubts about the validity of his conclusions.

The disparity in defining “concordism” is clear when reading Zondervan's Four Views on the Historical Adam, where each author is using “concordism” differently.

Too many students believe in a particular viewpoint with deep passion and emotion, but are unable to articulate their own view in detail, much less any views that differ from their own.