# Young Destroyed Kline On Framework Theory



## Romans922 (Jul 19, 2018)

Two articles for your enjoyment from Young, both of which responded to Kline’s very early work on framework of which Kline never responded to in substance (which is odd, he had decades to respond to one of the most conservative OT Scholars of the time):

EJ Young "The Days of Genesis"

EJ Young "The Days of Genesis 2"

Reactions: Informative 2 | Amen 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 19, 2018)

Indeed Young did. His work has helped me in all areas of attack on a creational (as opposed to a 'functional' view) and chronological view.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 23, 2018)

I’m surprised more people have not responded to this. Especially when there are some Kline fans here (you guys must be like Kline...  ).

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 23, 2018)

So Young was a "Day-Age" advocate?


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 23, 2018)

I think he was undetermined on the length of days. But that's not the point of this post at all. He critiques Kline's Framework Theory as one of the most conservative OT Scholars of the time, and Frame (who was very much lesser known) didn't even respond to him (and he had decades to do so).


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 23, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> and Frame (who was very much lesser known) didn't even respond to him (and he had decades to do so).



Did you mean to state "Frame" here?


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 23, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> Did you mean to state "Frame" here?



Frame/Kline...what's the difference...lol

I meant to say Kline.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 23, 2018)

Thanks for sharing the journal articles. They were really thorough.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 25, 2018)

Thanks for those, Andrew! Young has this material and much more in his two books,

_In the Beginning_, https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-J-Young/dp/0851512356
_Studies in Genesis One_, https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Genesis-One-Edward-Young/dp/0875525504

I used Young some decades ago to refute Tim Keller's "Genesis 1 is poetry" view when he was preaching in Gen 1; he had not yet become notorious as the theistic evolution proponent he now is (I realize that the PCA does allow the supposed orthodoxy of that view).

Grant, no, Young was not a "day-age" advocate; on Gen 3 he allowed that the "process" of plant life and growth may have extended beyond one day, which is reasonable.

He also maintained, "The first three days were not solar days such as we now have, inasmuch as the sun, moon and stars had not yet been made."

He is clear that the Hebrew genre of Gen 1 is historical narrative and not poetry or myth. While I do not know of his seeking to determine the precise 24-hourness of each of the first 6 days, others following him have done exegetical work in this regard. The "evening and the morning" refrain for each of the six days of creation does appear to give warrant that these were days as we now know them, even though days 1-3 were not technically "solar days".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 25, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks for those, Andrew! Young has this material and much more in his two books,
> 
> _In the Beginning_, https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-J-Young/dp/0851512356
> _Studies in Genesis One_, https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Genesis-One-Edward-Young/dp/0875525504
> ...


Thank you. I hold to 6 literal days myself, But I am grateful for the work of Young in these articles, because the poetic view mishandles the plain meaning of the text in my opinion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Jul 25, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The "evening and the morning" refrain for each of the six days of creation does appear to give warrant that these were days as we now know them, even though days 1-3 were not technically "solar days".



What is the usual answer that these days were still 24 hours even though they were not solar? I can't remember is why I am asking.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 25, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks for those, Andrew! Young has this material and much more in his two books,
> 
> _In the Beginning_, https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-J-Young/dp/0851512356
> _Studies in Genesis One_, https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Genesis-One-Edward-Young/dp/0875525504
> ...


I think the big dividing line on this issue would be between God creating all life forms after their own kind, as in direct creation, or did He use the built in Evolutionary process so called?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 25, 2018)

Hello Earl,

I think one of the best books on the issues pertaining to Genesis 1 and 2 is Douglas F. Kelly's _Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1 - 2.4 in the light of changing scientific paradigms_ (I only have the original edition - a new and updated 2017 one is available - but even back then the old one was a classic). This is the newest: https://smile.amazon.com/Creation-Change-Douglas-F-Kelly/dp/1781919992/ .

Prof Kelly argues convincingly in his chapter 6 " 'Days' Of Creation - Their Biblical Meaning", that even the days before the sun was created were of the same duration as the days after its creation. At this point he introduces Henry Morris' _The Genesis Record_,

Scientist Henry M. Morris seems correct in marshaling the evidence that 'day' in Genesis 1 and 2 signifies a normal solar day:

Furthermore, 'God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.' As though in anticipation of future misunderstanding, God carefully defined His terms! The very first time He used the word 'day' (Hebrew _yom_), He defined it as the 'light', to distinguish it from the 'darkness' called 'night'.

Having separated the day and the night, God had completed His first day's work. 'The evening and the morning were the first day.' This same formula is used at the conclusion of each of the six days; so it is obvious that the duration of each of the days, including the first, was the same.... It is clear that, beginning with the first day and continuing thereafter, there was established a cyclical succession of days and nights - periods of light and periods of darkness.

Such a cyclical light-dark arrangement clearly means that the earth was now rotating on its axis and that there was a source of light on one side of the earth corresponding to the sun, even though the sun was not yet made (Gen. 1:16). It is equally clear that the length of such days could only have been that of a normal solar day.

In the first chapter of Genesis, the termination of each day's work is noted by the formula: 'And the evening and the morning were the first [or "second," etc] day.' Thus each day had distinct boundaries and was one in a series of days, both of which criteria are never present in the Old Testament writings unless literal days are intended. The writer of Genesis was trying to guard in every way possible against any of his readers deriving the notion of nonliteral days from his record. (Henry M. Morris, _The Genesis Record_, 55,56)​____

And what was the source of light before the sun? We have a hint of what it was in Revelation 21:23: "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." The LORD God was the light shining on the earth prior to His making the massive yellow dwarf star we call our sun!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## earl40 (Jul 25, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> And what was the source of light before the sun? We have a hint of what it was in Revelation 21:23: "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." The LORD God was the light shining on the earth prior to His making the massive yellow dwarf star we call our sun!



Thank you Steve. So far as the hint above I have a tendency to think that there will be no shadows in the new earth with the refulgence of The Glory of Jesus, which thinking is supported by the absence of the moon.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 25, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> David,
> 
> I think you replied to the wrong thread.


You are correct. now deleted.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 25, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I think the big dividing line on this issue would be between God creating all life forms after their own kind, as in direct creation, or did He use the built in Evolutionary process so called?


Why sad?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 26, 2018)

Sad, David, because your fence-sitting post 12 on the issue posits the possible viability of theistic evolution, a sinful compromise of Biblical truth.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 26, 2018)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Sad, David, because your fence-sitting post 12 on the issue posits the possible viability of theistic evolution, a sinful compromise of Biblical truth.


Sorry for any confusion, as my point was that the dividing line will be between those of us who do hold to the Creation account as being literal and real history, and those who would see it more as a myth or figure of speech, and would allow for evolution as being in Genesis.
I hold to the 6 day account, and see God creating Adam and Eve Himself, and there was no need to use any evolutionary process.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 26, 2018)

Thanks for the clarification, David.


----------

