# Creation--contradiction?



## future expatriate (Feb 5, 2005)

First, let me apoligize if I am starting a thread that has already been discussed (I realize that the topic that I bring has, no doubt, been discussed to death in some circles). I know that many newbies come onto message boards and introduce for discussion topics that are well-discussed cans-o-worms, and I am going to apologize in advance if I am committing this _faux pas_.

Now, on to the topic:

When we read Genesis 1, we see God creating man on the sixth day, after the animals.


> 26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
> 
> 
> 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
> ...



Then, in Genesis 2, we see man seemingly created before the rest of the creatures.



> 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.



(Click here for the larger context.)

How do we reconcile or approach these seeming contradictions without acquiescing to the foul beast(s) of higher or textual criticism?

[Edited on 5-2-2005 by future expatriate]

[Edited on 5-2-2005 by future expatriate]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 5, 2005)

v.19 is not a time line accounting but a re-statement of fact. Genesis 1 sets forth the order. Genesis 2 is a summary of what went before mainly emphasizing man's naming of the animals. In other words he's just restating the creation of the animals from the ground as a fact and later setting them before Adam to be named. 

No contradiction.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 5, 2005)

That's too wooden a reading of the second passage. The first chapter of Genesis explains how God fashioned the cosmos. It's a stand alone narrative. The next chapter, actually at verse 4, begins the first of 10 subsequent narrations, each one beginning with the phrase, "These are the generations." They each presume on what has gone before. Collectively they keep narrowing down the story of humanity and even one family to get down to the 12 sons of Israel--the family that starts the covenant nation from which the Messiah shall come. You aren't presented with a "new" creation account in Gen 2. Gen 2 can't stand alone. Too many unanswered questions would arise. Gen 2 assumes Gen 1. 

In ch. 2 you are presented with the history of Man. You can't understand verse 19 without verse 18. Jehovah is explaining himself there. Adam shouldn't be alone, so God will create a helper. The following sentence "and out of the ground Jehovah formed every beast of the field," does not even demand a temporal, consecutive understanding, especially in the light of what was already presented in ch. 1. It is a statement of fact, no more. All these animals that God created he brought to Adam to name, and also to teach him--that he was alone. The creation of man was not "finished" yet.

Helpful?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 5, 2005)

I am not there yet, but volume 2 of Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, _God and Creation_ deals with some seeming tension in the narratives, all while remaining faithful. I will add my thoughts as they are conditioned by my readings.

[Edited on 2--5-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## future expatriate (Feb 5, 2005)

One alternative to how I was reading the passage that I came up with was that God's statement in verse eighteen was made _before_ human creation, incorperating his wisdom, foreknowlege, etc.

I readily admit that I'm not very good at hermeneutics.


----------



## cornelius vantil (Jun 21, 2005)

it will help resolve a lot of issues if you understand the creation week, not as a chronological sequence of events, but as a literary framework. genesis 1 was not meant to be used as a scientific explanation on how the world came into being


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Jun 21, 2005)

"foul beast(s) of higher or textual criticism"

i just want to point out what appears to be a confusion.
there are two things:
lower criticism or textual criticism
higher criticism or source criticism or literary criticism

textual criticism can be and often is fully orthodox in its assumptions and hermeneutical principles. the enemy of orthodoxy is higher/source/literary criticism not textual.

....


----------



## New wine skin (Jun 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by cornelius vantil_
> genesis 1 was not meant to be used as a scientific explanation on how the world came into being




what is scientific ??? presuppositions here come : ) the problem with scientific method is it is not scientific. It is incoherant because it rejects the metaphysical. That is to say, its a self refuting absolute when it says any thing to be scientific must be observable and verifiable else its not scientific. Well this statement is not scientitific therefore it is false by this absolute. I dont want to start a new thread but just want to shut down the "scientific" argument used against Gen 1


----------



## New wine skin (Jun 21, 2005)

to put context in my comment I am rejecting the excuse that "Gen 1 is not meant to be scientific therefore..... " I see this type of thinking as an intellectual pacifer from liberals for the sake of unity with our "friends" who support evolutionary ideology.


----------



## New wine skin (Jun 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> That's too wooden a reading of the second passage. The first chapter of Genesis explains how God fashioned the cosmos. It's a stand alone narrative. The next chapter, actually at verse 4, begins the first of 10 subsequent narrations, each one beginning with the phrase, "These are the generations." They each presume on what has gone before. Collectively they keep narrowing down the story of humanity and even one family to get down to the 12 sons of Israel--the family that starts the covenant nation from which the Messiah shall come. You aren't presented with a "new" creation account in Gen 2. Gen 2 can't stand alone. Too many unanswered questions would arise. Gen 2 assumes Gen 1.
> 
> In ch. 2 you are presented with the history of Man. You can't understand verse 19 without verse 18. Jehovah is explaining himself there. Adam shouldn't be alone, so God will create a helper. The following sentence "and out of the ground Jehovah formed every beast of the field," does not even demand a temporal, consecutive understanding, especially in the light of what was already presented in ch. 1. It is a statement of fact, no more. All these animals that God created he brought to Adam to name, and also to teach him--that he was alone. The creation of man was not "finished" yet.
> ...





Well said!


----------



## cornelius vantil (Jun 27, 2005)

gen2 assumes gen 1?? i do not agree....gen 1 says vegatation was created on the third day, animals were created on the 6th day finaly was man and woman. gen2 says there was no vegatation b/c there was no rain and no man, then a "mist" is formed, then man is made, the garden formed, animals were created, Adam names the animals finally woman is made. when the 2 accounts are compared side by side they are not the same! we have to come to grips with that.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by cornelius vantil_
> gen2 assumes gen 1?? i do not agree....gen 1 says vegatation was created on the third day, animals were created on the 6th day finaly was man and woman. gen2 says there was no vegatation b/c there was no rain and no man, then a "mist" is formed, then man is made, the garden formed, animals were created, Adam names the animals finally woman is made. when the 2 accounts are compared side by side they are not the same! we have to come to grips with that.



You are assuming that the traditional view interprets the Gen 2 narrative in the strict chronoligical sense as gen 1, which traditionall adherents do not do. We've covered this on the last thread. The gen. 2 narrative is not strictly chronological. The gen.1 narrative clearly is. Even holding to the FH view you must acknowledge that obvious distinction in the narratives.


----------



## cornelius vantil (Jun 27, 2005)

clearly gen.2 is not cronoligical??????? 
God makes man
then plants a garden
then puts man in the garden
then god creates animals and brings them to man to name (i thought the animals were made first?)
then after naming the animals woman is made (all this happened in 24 solar hours)

patrick, gen is account that stands on its own. exegetically the events are presented in chronological fasion. only by approaching the text with a preconcieved bias (ie literal reading of gen1) would one come to the conclusion that gen2. is not chronolgical. taken on its own it is what it is a different account of creation than gen1.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by cornelius vantil_
> clearly gen.2 is not cronoligical???????
> God makes man
> then plants a garden
> ...



I said it was not _strictly_ chronological like Gen. 1. The intention of the narrative is different than that of Gen 1 which is unquestionably a chronological narrative and not poetry. So I don't understand where you get the "literay framework" from. Could it be from your preconcieved bias? It certainly doesn't come from a natural reading of the text.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by cornelius vantil_
> it will help resolve a lot of issues if you understand the creation week, not as a chronological sequence of events, but as a literary framework. genesis 1 was not meant to be used as a scientific explanation on how the world came into being



I find this a rather interesting comment when it is Kline who developed his FH scheme attempting to provide an interpretation to reconcile the Geneisi narratives with old earth "scientific" views. 



> 47 In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man. But while I regard the widespread insistence on a young earth to be a deplorable disservice to the cause of biblical truth, I at the same time deem commitment to the authority of scriptural teaching to involve the acceptance of Adam as an historical individual, the covenantal head and ancestral fount of the rest of mankind, and the recognition that it was the one and same divine act that constituted him the first man, Adam the Son of God (Luke 3:38), that also imparted to him life (Gen. 2:7).
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF3-96Kline.html



Of course we could push this "literary framework" to it's logical conclusion. If we can't accept the natural reading of "day" then why accept the natural reading of male, female, beasts, birds, trees, etc. Or how about "and God said"? Should that just be understood as part of teh literary framework? Could that also be just a literary device to convey something else, perhaps a poetic way of describing the stages of evolution which culminated in present day man? 

This is the problem when you compromise with modern science.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 27, 2005)

(and up from the dead
comes a 4 month old thread...)

Since chapter 2 _exists_ in our Scriptures after chapter 1, I don't understand how you can say that the substance does not presume the reader has already read and familiarized himself with the contents of chapter 1. Other than the form-critic, who abstracts and atomizes the biblical text? How many of the stories on your shelf do you ordinarily start reading in chapter 2? Or begin on the Xth page of text after the first?

I suppose you could call that the "canonical argument restated," but of course as a scholar with an orthodox mindset, there's more to it than that. Because this is both Moses' account, and the Spirit inspired account. So, if you take the second account and begin dealing with it as if it stands alone, in an abstract or hypothetical first-position, you are running against the very grain of the Scripture. Scripture itself assumes you have read and digested the Gen 1 account.

As to "coming to grips" with the text and its variations relative to the Gen 1 account, it never ceases to amaze me that this argument is trotted out as often as it is--as if the issues were never noticed (!) until about a century ago. In all the years since "framework" burst on the evangelical scene I have not seen _one_ exegetical refutation of the traditional exegetical position. Not one attempt to destabilize the traditional work of harmonization.

No. Not Futato. Not Kline. Not Irons. Nobody. The old hermeneutic has not been tried and found wanting; it has simply been dismissed. Dismissed as insufficient to meet the challenges of extra-biblical mockery. The greatest single oddity about the modern take on Genesis 1 is that the rankest unbelievers and the staunchest conservatives occupy the same ground when it comes to interpretation. What did Moses mean? The unbelievers just say, "we agree that's what he wrote; we just don't happen to believe a word of it--its all mythology," while the believers tout its plain veracity.

Meanwhile, the framework view occupies the twilight of middle-ground shadows: a strange place where day-age views cross paths with theistic evolution, where half-formed theories designed to correlate biblical data with since-rejected naturalistic hypotheses limp past muttering, where C.I. Scofield's ghost walks by arm-in-arm with H.P. Lovecraft. You get the idea.

I'm not going to post a thesis on the interpretation of Gen 1 & 2. It's been done, and much better than mine beside. If there are specific questions dealing with particular matters of harmonization, I will attempt (along with others) to address them. But to claim that these matters have never been adequately faced in centuries of traditional Reformed exegesis is simply to state out loud, "I have not done much reading in this area."


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 27, 2005)

Here is Dr. Pipa's critique of FH in case anyone is interested. 

http://www.capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm


----------



## cornelius vantil (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Of course we could push this "literary framework" to it's logical conclusion. If we can't accept the natural reading of "day" then why accept the natural reading of male, female, beasts, birds, trees, etc. Or how about "and God said"? Should that just be understood as part of the literary framework? Could that also be just a literary device to convey something else, perhaps a poetic way of describing the stages of evolution which culminated in present day man?
> 
> This is the problem when you compromise with modern science.



so if "day" means 24 hours does that mean that gen 2 teach that the heavens and the earth where created in 24 hours?

"this is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, *in the day* that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" gen2:4 NKJV

hmmm gen1 says that creation six days, gen2 says 1 day if "day"=24 solar hours we have a problem here. well i guess the catholic church was right for condemning galieo for saying that the sun does not rotate around the earth when the "bible says" that it the sun that rises and sets? i am sure that the christians of that time used the "we should not comprimise with modern science" montra as well



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Since chapter 2 exists in our Scriptures after chapter 1, I don't understand how you can say that the substance does not presume the reader has already read and familiarized himself with the contents of chapter 1. Other than the form-critic, who abstracts and atomizes the biblical text? How many of the stories on your shelf do you ordinarily start reading in chapter 2? Or begin on the Xth page of text after the first?
> 
> I suppose you could call that the "canonical argument restated," but of course as a scholar with an orthodox mindset, there's more to it than that. Because this is both Moses' account, and the Spirit inspired account. So, if you take the second account and begin dealing with it as if it stands alone, in an abstract or hypothetical first-position, you are running against the very grain of the Scripture. Scripture itself assumes you have read and digested the Gen 1 account.



you are assuming that for one to be "orthodox" one must assume mosiac authorship of genesis, which i do not. that is a whole other issue itslef that if you like to talk about we can go start another thread. but lets start with the assumption that moses wrote genesis, were did he get the material that comprised it? was it directly from divine revelation? if that is the case how did the jews know about the promises God made to the patriarchs or the story of creation or the flood? are you suggesting that it was not until moses penned gensis that the jews had no understanding of who they were? now if you says these stories where preserved orally before moses than what we have is moses compiling a series of stoies and putting them together in form that we presently have in the book of genesis. if this is the case (which i think it is but would put the compiling much later) then gen1 and gen2 can be understood as 2 seperate accounts of creation that was compiled together by moses. the issues are a whole lot more complicated than just assume gen2 follows gen1.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 28, 2005)

> so if "day" means 24 hours does that mean that gen 2 teach that the heavens and the earth where created in 24 hours?
> 
> "this is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" gen2:4 NKJV


So, your argument is that because in this instance, the word "yom" apparently does not mean an ordinary day, then it does not mean it in the previous several instances. This is an informal fallacy--arguing from a particular instance to a general conclusion; as well as ignoring the _exegesis_ of the ordinary-day position. The exegesis isn't even touched! The position is merely dismissed as I already mentioned, and on what basis? A logical blunder.

Note the _throughout_ usage of the OT regarding "days" used with ordinal numbers. That involves the exegesis just of that word: "yom" (not even touching on any of dozens of other points). Not just Gen. 1. Not just Gen. Not just Moses. The whole OT. It's simply ridiculous to claim that a general use of "day" in a single instance, in a new and subsequent section of the text--a usage that _no one finds controversial_ with respect to its meaning, somehow in the last 150 years has come to "contradict" the previous narrative.


> well i guess the catholic church was right for condemning galieo for saying that the sun does not rotate around the earth when the "bible says" that it the sun that rises and sets?


Wrong. And its patronizing, too, to lump in your debaters here with 17th century (A.D. 1615) RCC apologists. At least have the courtesy to quote a Reformation source against us. 1) Why should we be tarred with the same brush as a bunch of allegorizing, careless exegetes, who were more concerned with preserving papal authority and it's enshrinement of one brand of Greek philosophico-theological synthesis over others? 2) This same Galileo swore on a stack of Bibles that the sun (as opposed to the earth) was the motionless center of the "celestial orbs." This he did because other theories were repugnant to him. They went against his reason. What would he say to the scientists of today who put all "celestial orb theories" in the same category as flat-earth? The point being that Galileo was just as insistent about a flawed point of his astronomy as he was about a correct one--not because the Bible said so, but because "science" said so! 3) Overthrowing the _exegesis_ of the papists was a light task anyway, given that a) poetic expression from the Psalms was the cornerstone of the papal theologian's arguments, and b) it is another small thing to recognize perspective-orientation; after all, we do it ourselves, and think nothing of it--we aren't self-contradictory, so why should we assume that the Biblical writers were? 4) Evidence interpretation is a matter of philosophy, not a product of a "scientific worldview". So, "young-earthers" discount evidence brought forward by "old-earthers" and "old-earthers" discount the evidence brought forward by "young-earthers," each subordinating the other's evidence to their own, or reinterpreting it. *Why should YOU assume you have the "privileged position" of the moral-evidentiary high ground?*

Your comment wasn't an argument anyway, just ad hominem abuse, so it really didn't deserve a paragraph response, but there you go...

And in response to your last paragraph, 1) Yea, I guess I would have to agree that rejecting Mosaic authorship of the full Pentateuch (with the exception of a handful of verses) would be the "unorthodox" position on that point by definition. You might not like that, but if the history of interpretation is going to be our guide for determining "orthodoxy" (and not just "feelings"), along with the predominant historic view of theologians and laity alike (including the Jewish tradition), then yes, MY view is the orthodox one. 2) You are proposing a false dilemma. I am not at all leery of affirming that Moses had written and oral revelation to draw from, in addition to being the recipient of direct revelation. It makes no difference to my interpretation to affirm that the people of God have always been in possession of the "oracles of God" in some form starting with Adam, and also "regular" history that had no particular "preservation" attached or promised to it. The internal testimony of Scripture says that Moses preserved _as Scripture_ specifically what God wanted him to. This position does not commit me to accepting two-fold, or two-tiered creation accounts. 3) I would argue that it is a two-dimentional view of "compiling" such as you suggest that is the "simplistic" approach to the crafting of the Genesis story. The book is far from a "stacking" of pre-existing materials. 4) The two-account theory stands or falls on the claim of irreconcilability. We are still waiting for a demonstration of the exegetical failures of the "old orthodoxy."


For others reading this thread, I would second Patrick's recommendation above that you read the demonstration of the exegetical failures of the "framework" view, note Dr. Pipa's thesis hyperlinked above. I encourage you to read the framework material. I am not the least afraid of it's becoming popular, provided there is free access to information, and the "well isn't poisoned." Also, please read the traditional defenses. And the "fittest" exegesis will survive and thrive, I'm sure.


----------



## cornelius vantil (Jun 29, 2005)

the point that i was tring to make that there is a similarity between the line of argumentation between men who criticizes a non-literal view of the creation of those of galieo's time....yes there might have been a little bit fustration in my post (it gets a little old hearing that non-literal readings of creation is somehow compromising with evoltionary science) and as far as exegesis is conserned no one has offered an explanation on how gen2 is not chronological. i have heard assertions on this post but not any evidence to engage with.

i am not going to comment on mosiac authorship simply b/c to discuss it will invovle a whole other thread and i would like to continue discussing creation issues.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 30, 2005)

Prefaced Remarks:
It is evident that part of our problem is communicative. A number of assumptions have been made by both sides in this debate. It seems clear that Mr Hernandez is not arguing for a typical evangelical "framework" view, at least not that as offered by its leading Reformed proponents (Kline, Futato, Irons, et al.). This should have been obvious to us from the outset. And anyway, we should have asked. I apologize. (Mr Williams, at least, seems to have seen this better than either Patrick or myself.) There are a couple of clues in the exchanges that seem to indicate MrHernandez is more of a strict source-theory advocate. Of course this labeling is also of limited value, as Mr Hernandez may not subscribe wholeheartedly to the views of that "school", nor define himself in those terms. While assuming is wrong, sometimes guesswork (with appropriate charity) is both desireable and necessary, because our thoughts are not atomized but connected. In debate, I recognize that a total assault involves not merely confronting presentations, but also undermining foundations.

On to the matter:
Patrick above pointed out that traditional exegesis recognizes both non-chronological elements as well as chronological elements in the Genesis 2 account. His comment "You are assuming that the traditional view interprets the Gen 2 narrative in the strict chronoligical sense as gen 1," was misinterpreted as a claim that Gen 2 is _not_ chronological. This misinterpretation he attempted to correct in a following post. Thus, when Mr Hernandez asks for "proof" that Gen 2 is _not_ chronological he seems to be asking for something that the other side does not subscribe to.

The "framework" advocates _DO_ believe that Gen 2 is _not_ chronological, and on the basis of that view claim that Gen 1 is not either. Here I quote 2 excerpts from Dr. Pipa's critique:


> His [Dr. Futato's] conclusion is that, although Moses uses the form of sequential narrative, he intends for us to think topically and not sequentially. In effect he says, that the grammatical form, though normally used in sequential narrative, may be used in a topical account.7 ....
> 
> On the basis of this division, he argues for the topical arrangement of chapter 2 and suggests that chapter 2 enables us to understand the structure of chapter 1: "Granted... the topical nature of Gen 2:4-25, we should not be surprised by the suggestion that the coherent reading of Gen 1:1-2:3 (that is, the reading that coheres internally as well as externally with Gen 2:4-25) is topical rather than chronological."8


 But as Dr. Pipa rejoinds, this is not to be accepted:


> It seems to me that Dr. Futato's analysis does not give sufficient consideration to Moses' style of writing history or the special structure he uses in Genesis 2:4. Admittedly, Moses arranges a portion of chapter two topically, but the second half of the chapter is chronological narrative. Furthermore, even if Moses arranges his material topically, we still would have no grounds to interpret the first chapter in light of the second. Iain Duguid comments:
> 
> 'If Genesis 2 is non-chronological, then Genesis 1 is non-chronological' is faulty. On the same basis, one might argue that because John's gospel is non-chronological, Mark's gospel must be equally non-chronological. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to find a topical account building on a more chronological one.... To my mind, the nature of Genesis 2 does not prejudge the issue of Genesis 1 at all.9
> 
> ...


The point of this extended quotation does serve to answer Mr Hernandez, if by his complaint:


> how gen2 is not chronological. i have heard assertions on this post but not any evidence to engage with.


he simply wants a traditional exegesis response to why *a portion* of Gen 2 may be taken as recapitulative or topical, in other words _non-chronological._ I would further state, harking back to my previous arguments, that the subject of authorship is directly relevant to the issue. Because once Mr Hernandez has disputed Moses as the single author--once he has allowed an extensive, pre- and post-Exodus, post conquest existence and use of "inspired but conflicting" material--why should he be persuaded by the "order argument" that I raised previously? The argument that the Gen 2 follows Gen 1, and should be read as though dependent in thought upon it? He has sidestepped that whole argument. Exegetical arguments that intertwine the two can be dismissed (as opposed to argued with and interacted against) because the two are fundamentally distinct. I'm not saying that Mr Hernandez is not going to deal with the material presented above, just that he has already dismissed one very cogent argument based on the _text as we have it,_ on the basis of a disagreement about the origin_s_ of that text. In other words, the arguments are only cogent _provided_ that we share fundamental attitudes about the nature of the text we are dealing with.

We don't have to discuss this issue further in this thread. For others, simply note that this form of argument is very similar to, though not necessarily in the same category as, that which pits traditional exegesis against the "Jehovist" and "Elohist" categories (add "Priestly" and "Deutero" for the whole JEPD theory). The form-critic waves his hand and dismisses exegesis that intertwines Scripture that he claims represents two seperate and distinctive strands of religious thought, that have inherent contradictions according to his view. According to that view, fundamental misunderstandings of the "nature of the material you are dealing with" leads you to conclusions that cannot withstand rational (in his view) analysis.


----------



## Robin (Jun 30, 2005)

This is why I hold to the "Framework" model....the Genesis literature is not chronicalizing (sp?) the creation account per se'....it is asserting the creative power of God. Hence, the recapitulation in the narrative.

(I'm not looking for a fight, about this...but there is ample explanation in Futato, Longman, Kline, et al. Not to mention allowing the whole of the Text to speak for Itself.)



r.

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by Robin]


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by cornelius vantil_
> it will help resolve a lot of issues if you understand the creation week, not as a chronological sequence of events, but as a literary framework. genesis 1 was not meant to be used as a scientific explanation on how the world came into being



I guess I can infer that you are Kline adherent? I think the Framework hypothesis is awful on a number of linguistic fronts and comes dangerously close to denying the Biblical account, in my opinion.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 30, 2005)

Kevin,
I think you are mistaken (as I was) on Mr Hernandez' epsoused position. The only clear advocate for "framework" (so far) is Robin.

Robin,
You're a dear brother. But In my humble opinion, _Framework's_ attempt to "elevate" the debate, and so sidestep the hermeneutical issue (which will not go away), frankly enfeebles the church. What if we used the same tactic to dodge fights over justification? Or imputation? Or the Resurrection?

"Well folks, we have 4 "accounts" of the resurrection of Jesus. If we take just one of them as "normative" or "chronological" then clearly we have irreconcilable conflicts. So, since at least ONE of them must plainly be understood as containing more _theology_ than history, its clear that the total message of "Resurrection" is not HOW it happened, but THAT it happened. _Resurrection is *theology*, not *history*._ The important thing is that the disciples understood that _whatever_ Jesus meant by the "resurrection" he promised, they were convinced that he had accomplished it. And so are we! We'll let the "fundamentalists" fight with the liberals over the swamp of "bodily resurrections" of Christ or anybody else. They are all wrong. We're above that. Our purpose is to stand on the mountaintops of the "theology of Resurrection," and plant our flag. We oppose everyone who denies Resurrection! We are Pro-Resurrection!"

If you oppose that kind of thinking, interpreting, and theology with respect to the resurrection (and I should think that you would!), how do you combat it? Give me a biblical-theological _rule,_ a justification for applying that approach when it comes to Genesis 1 & 2, but noplace else. What reliable technique governs the application of this rule? What about Gen. 3? Was there a Serpent, _a talking snake_ that deceived a real woman named Eve? Were the trees _tangible_ objects? How about their fruit? Could it be chewed and swallowed? (If I had already given up Gen 1 & 2 as history, Chapter 3 would already be looking mighty long-in-the-tooth right now as well--falling like dominoes.) Which chapter or verse division marks "real" history from then on? How do you tell the previous section, with all the "marks of narrative" from the subsequent section that has all the same marks?

These are not just rhetorical questions. I think Framework advocates owe the theological world a defense of the whole hermeneutic. Pipa's article demonstrates the weakness of Framework from the standpoint of the historical-grammatical school (read _Reformation_ school) of hermeneutics. Framework advocates deny the validity of the criticisms by claiming they do not apply. And that is where they leave it. Again, I'll say it: JUSTIFY setting aside the old rules, the old hermeneutic.


----------



## Robin (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by cornelius vantil_
> ...



Maybe it's another thread??? But I'd have to counter the assertion...Horton, Riddlebarger, and quite a few more hold to Framework....I don't know what folks think it is, but I don't see it marginalizing the Text at all.



r.


----------



## Robin (Jul 1, 2005)

With all due respect, Bruce...I don't think there's a danger at all. The big reason why is that the literature style/genre of Genesis is not like the NT Gospels/Epistles. The catagories are completely different. If anything, it is coherent with the whole of Redemptive history and makes a beautiful "bookend" with Revelation.

As I said....perhaps another thread. 



r.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> With all due respect, Bruce...I don't think there's a danger at all. The big reason why is that the literature style/genre of Genesis is not like the NT Gospels/Epistles. The catagories are completely different. If anything, it is coherent with the whole of Redemptive history and makes a beautiful "bookend" with Revelation.
> 
> As I said....perhaps another thread.
> ...



Do you mean the first two chapters of Genesis are not read in the same way, or do you mean the whole book of Genesis ought to be read as non-historical. Even John Gerstner admitted that Genesis _purports _ to be history.


----------



## Robin (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



Will somebody please hit me in the head with a baseball bat, OK?

Of course, Genesis is history.

Here is a link explaining (and it is a bit of work to get it) the question of FI to see if it comport to the 3 Forms and (of course) the Bible:
http://www.oceansideurc.org/sections/articles/lengthdays_genesis.htm

I hope this gives some clarity out there. A helpful hint, when studying this, remember the entire Bible has eschatalogical language throughout it. That is key. Ultimately, one's eschat sensibilities will color theological understanding.

(Larry's got IT! There's no contradiction in Genesis. The problem is our tiny-pea-brains...)

:bigsmile:

r.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Robin]


----------



## JohnV (Jul 1, 2005)

My views on this are a bit sharper on the generality of the issue. 



> _Originally posted by cornelius vantil_
> it will help resolve a lot of issues if you understand the creation week, not as a chronological sequence of events, but as a literary framework. genesis 1 was not meant to be used as a scientific
> explanation on how the world came into being



There is a difference between a scientific statement and a historical accounting. The Bible does not have to be a science textbook to be taken as a literal historic account. News programs are not scientific explanations either. But the normal reading of the Bible is to be preferred in any cases where the intent may be in question. 



> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> I guess I can infer that you are Kline adherent? I think the Framework hypothesis is awful on a number of linguistic fronts and comes dangerously close to denying the Biblical account, in my opinion.



The literary problem I see is that we are to prefer the ordinary meaning of the words of the text. Maybe there is a more literary or metaphorical meaning, but Scripture did not make that clear to us. I would question giving it a literary or metaphorical meaning, since there is no specific warrant for it. So even if the literary approach of the Framework Hypothesis were faultless, it still is no more than a theory. 



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Maybe it's another thread??? But I'd have to counter the assertion...Horton, Riddlebarger, and quite a few more hold to Framework....I don't know what folks think it is, but I don't see it marginalizing the Text at all.



What is marginalized is that the normal six-day interpretation is in the Confessions of the Reformed churches. It is mentioned in the Decalogue, and is therefore warranted in the Confessions. To put another view, which does not have that same Biblical warrant, beside it as if equal to it, is to put the six-day view out of the Confessions. The conclusion will be to not have any statement of the creation days in the Confessions at all. God makes the correlation between the six days of creation and the six work days: to overthrow that is to remove it from the Confessions; it does not warrant putting something else along side it. 

So my own personal view is that it doesn't really matter what the arguments for the FH are, it's just theoretical. It's a topic for discussion, for interest, but not one for aquiring followers. The same goes for the Analogical Day theory and the Theistic Evolution theory. So I remain unmoved unless they can show me that God makes of it a Framework interpretation in Scripture just as He makes of it a six-day interpretation of it in Scripture. 

But, that's just my


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Kevin,
> I think you are mistaken (as I was) on Mr Hernandez' epsoused position. The only clear advocate for "framework" (so far) is Robin.



Guess I was. Cheerfully withdrawn!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I'm not sure marginalizing is the right word. I fear, however, that it is a huge step towards denying the historicity of the creation account (though FH adherents would deny this, I think) and comes close to being in conflict with the Standards. The problem is, FH is so easily defeated by applying first year Hebrew grammar to the text. I think Kline, et al, just needed to publish or perish. Oh the hazards of academia!


----------



## Robin (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



All FI says is to read the Text in the most plain and natural way possible. The original readers would have no problems as we do today -- we're so set on knowing more than God and trying to figure out HOW He did things. Yes...Genesis is not written to prove the length of days or God's existence, but that He is Creator and imposes Covenant on His human creatures.

r.


----------



## Robin (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> But the normal reading of the Bible is to be preferred in any cases So my own personal view is that it doesn't really matter what the arguments for the FH are, it's just theoretical. It's a topic for discussion, for interest, but not one for aquiring followers.
> ... I remain unmoved unless they can show me that God makes of it a Framework interpretation in Scripture just as He makes of it a six-day interpretation of it in Scripture.
> But, that's just my



 John. However, this is different:




> The same goes for the ..... the Theistic Evolution theory



If we get rid of a historical Adam - Redemptive history is toast. No Fall, no Salvation, no reason for Jesus, Etc. Theistic Evolution is the view that is truly dangerous.



Meanwhile, John, do read my former link, as it does address the question of Framework countering the confessions and Scripture. 

In edification 

Robin


----------



## JohnV (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> However, this is different:
> 
> 
> ...


We lose a lot more than that, but yes, that's enough already. 

To wit: In High School I defended against those who believed that since the Bible contained errors pertaining to history and science, the objective, verifiable dicsiplines, it could have no bearing on the subjective discipline of religion. But I was able to show them that losing the historical aspect of the Bible does a whole lot more than that, since they too lose objectivity and confidence in their history and science. In other words, it made a completely subjective religion out of their positivistic optimism in science and history. 

So, what we lose is all meaning altogether. If the Bible is only religiously true, as the Theistic Evolutionists hold, then there is no difference to it not being religiously true, for there is no content to that religious aspect. So in religion, _A_ = _non-A_ in their frame of reference. And if this is so, it is also so for all subsidiary subjects emanating from it, namely the disciplines of science and history. I really don't know if I am typing this or not, I just believe that I am. 




> Meanwhile, John, do read my former link, as it does address the question of Framework countering the confessions and Scripture.
> 
> Robin



How far do I have to read it, Robin? I've read a few pages, and it is already something that I don't have to read. For one, his allusion to the Platonic philosophers and their relation to the early church fathers is far afield already. I would suggest a careful reading of Augustine, especially The City of God, chapters 8 and 9. 

The Confessions refer to a six-day creation, and reference the Decalogue directly. What I am saying is that this is immovable: God has put the two together in one sentence, in reference to each other. We may not overthrow that. 

What I am referring to, though, is that the FH makes even the plain observation of the correlation between Ex. 20 and Gen. 1 in the Confessions a subjective one. That is an assertion, a bold one, and one that is unwarranted, Dr. Ward notwithstanding. There is nothing compelling us to think that this correlation is a contradiction with any revelation either of God's creation and providence, or of His Scripture. 

I scanned through the article. I read some first, middle, and last sentences of paragraphs, enough to know that he was suggesting on bold assertions, not concluding from solid premises. I'll read it more carefully later, but my point here is that it does not bear on my reservations about FH at all.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> . A helpful hint, when studying this, remember the entire Bible has eschatalogical language throughout it. That is key. Ultimately, one's eschat sensibilities will color theological understanding.
> 
> 
> ...



How does this help the framework case? Because I affirm that the Bible's plotline is eschatological and also hold to 6 day creation, yet I see no tension between my two beliefs.


----------



## crhoades (Jul 1, 2005)

Point of clarification if anyone would indulge me...

Does the FH deny a six day creation or do they just arrive at it/interpret the first 2 chapters differently? 

Can a FH support both young and old earth or is it relegated to believing one or the other?


----------



## Robin (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Point of clarification if anyone would indulge me...
> 
> Does the FH deny a six day creation or do they just arrive at it/interpret the first 2 chapters differently?
> ...



Chris, these are two different categories, FYI. FH affirms the literal 6 day creation. No problem there. It could be that the days were longer ??? who knows? But I'm not confusing a day with a week/month/year, etc. It isn't important. What IS important is that there are precise things happening in good order when God creates things each day. Significantly, He rests on the seventh, not that He was tired - but that He was FINISHED creating and at that point "sat down to reign". In obedience and honor we observe the Sabbath to attest to His Majesty before a watching world.

The age of the earth is another issue altogether. I hold to the "old" model. Measuring the age of the earth via the genealogies in the Bible is erroneous -- plus, that is NOT why the "begets" are there.
(Plus, I believe in dinosaurs ) To answer your Q, Chris, you probably won't be a young-earther if you understand FI, but you're free to be.

As Patrick noted in another thread, the creation account is not there for speculation on either the length of days; the age of the earth or talking snakes. Likewise, Scriptures' genealogies are not there to trace the age of the earth; when the Flood happened or other self-indulgent, ignorant distractions.

A simple reading of the Genesis points to the order of creation first (Gen. 1-2:3) then a more detailed unfolding of Adam's role in things (Gen 2:4...). The progression of the narrative unfolds deeper detail. Allow the Text to speak and make its point. Forget the verse/chpt divisions!

There is such a thing as literal interpretation without the _wooden_ literal sense. This is common in oral-traditions - (even in ancient music texts: stating first the main motiff -- then restating and parsing finer detail -- which does not disrupt the original statement.)

I'm very upset about the dinosaurs leaving us, btw.



r.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Robin (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



See, Jacob? This proves you're not really a Theonomist! (Sorry, I couldn't resist  ) Seriously, though....there IS no tension if one's grounded in knowledge of Covenant -- whereas the Dispie-bent is going to be a staunch "young earther" (most likely) among other problems. I wonder if you can see a pattern here? Ever wonder why the Dispie movement et al don't really care about the OT? There is "no use" for it in their schema. (All this is for another thread???)

All to say, "eschatology drives theology" whether we know it or not.

r.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Robin]


----------



## crhoades (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



So, FH adherents are a mix between old and young earthers and does not necessitate one or the other views...

Gotcha. 

You can have the dinosaurs...Wouldn't want a T-Rex showing up on my back porch anytime soon - ever see Jurassic Park? Sides, I'm sure they leave bigger presents in the parks than dogs do.

For what it's worth, I'm undecided on the issue of creationism. Not the fact that God did it and evolution is impossible - more on the length of the day thing. Got a degree in chemistry and biology and have to overcome a lot of humanistic thinking. Did a ton of study on it after I became a Christian in college and ended up along the Hugh Ross old earth scenario. If I'm not mistaken, he takes a literal reading of the accounts in Genesis and traces out the big bang in them etc. Doesn't revert to FH. I haven't studied the issue since then and haven't really read much of the young earth view. I can squeak by in affirming the WCF and say yes - six days although I know that the intent of the divines was probably literal 24 hour days so that's a cop out. One area of thought to sanctify at a time for me. Thanks for the answer.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 1, 2005)

I don't have anyproblems with Dinos. I pretend that their the dragon-like creatures spoken of in scripture.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 1, 2005)

Maybe its time to replay my Craftsman's Theory of the creation days again. It satisfies the length of days problem; at least for me.

A craftsman does a layout before he begins his work. Every detail is in the plan before he starts. The more experienced the craftsman, the less likely a surprise will come up in the project he is undertaking. I am such a craftsman: a cabinetmaker making a large complex of kitchen and bathroom cabinets. But God is the ultimate craftsman. He knows everything before it is, because it is impossible for His knowledge to be subject to change. You could say that for Him it is possible for _A_ to equal _non-A_ because He knows it before it is, and still knows it even if is no more, both the same as if it is because His knowledge is unchangeable. Indeed, it could not be unless He knew it first. And creation is not a new thing with Him, though it is new with the things created. So it follows that God, the Creator of heaven and earth had a plan, a layout according to which He made all things, so that it was very good. 

With this view, it is not at all a problem that the sun, moon and stars were created on the fourth day. It does not obviate the day scenario for the days preceding that day, since the length of the day does not depend on the existence of the sun but rather the sun's existence depending on the plan that was there before the first day. So every day could be a regular or sidereal day regardless of the day the luminaries were made, since the plan for the final outcome of the creation was already determined from the start. 

It is quite similar to the doors fitting the openings in a complex of cabinets, even though the doors were ordered to size to the sixteenth of an inch weeks before the first two pieces of panel were even cut to make the cabinets, onto which they were meant to fit. 

So there is no problem with days being counted, even though the sun, by which we measure days, was not created until the fourth day. The sun was not the way God measured days, but rather the sun and earth were placed according to God's pre-determination of the length of the day. 


Alas, this is but another theory. I can find reference to it in Augustine, but not a direct reference in Scripture like I do with the six-day interpretation that God gave it. Actually I did find one, but the correlation is not as clear as in the Decalogue. But my view is not at odds at all with the regular six-day view. It is, instead, a defence of it.



[Edited on 7-2-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## cornelius vantil (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Prefaced Remarks:
> It is evident that part of our problem is communicative. A number of assumptions have been made by both sides in this debate. It seems clear that Mr Hernandez is not arguing for a typical evangelical "framework" view, at least not that as offered by its leading Reformed proponents (Kline, Futato, Irons, et al.). This should have been obvious to us from the outset. And anyway, we should have asked. I apologize. (Mr Williams, at least, seems to have seen this better than either Patrick or myself.) There are a couple of clues in the exchanges that seem to indicate MrHernandez is more of a strict source-theory advocate. Of course this labeling is also of limited value, as Mr Hernandez may not subscribe wholeheartedly to the views of that "school", nor define himself in those terms. While assuming is wrong, sometimes guesswork (with appropriate charity) is both desireable and necessary, because our thoughts are not atomized but connected. In debate, I recognize that a total assault involves not merely confronting presentations, but also undermining foundations.



ok well let me respond

1. there is little in kline, irons, bolcher, or futato i would disagree with. as far as FH is conserned. if people on this thread do see a disagreement please show me.

2. i do not hold to the JEDP theory of the wellhausen school of higher-criticism. yet it is true i do not hold to mosiac authorship of the pentateuch...where does that place me.... i do not know..i am still thinking through those issues.

3. how i believe we got genesis does not conflict with my understanding of the creation week. yes i do believe there are 2 accounts of creation, yet God by his providence placed them in the scriptures.

4. i do belive in the historicity of the creation, Adam, and the fall. how i believe these account are preserved for us either through the pen of moses or some exilic collector does not change that.

if someone wants to know what i think they can simply ask speculate on the board.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 1, 2005)

Excerpts from my next book, _The Framework of the Resurrection_

On a straightforward reading of the resurrection passages, it is clear that the record, if it were interpreted literally, would conflict with Jesus' own prediction--found most plainly expressed in Matt. 12:40, "...so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Then there is the ambiguity John introduces about which day Jesus was actually crucified on (was it Thursday? or Friday?). Mark keaves everybody hanging (and then there's that oddly appended codicil at the end!) Did Mary Magdalene see the angels before the disciples (Lk. 24:10) or afterward (John 20:13)?

Clearly this "event" is to be taken theologically, not as an expression of how the whole came together, _or what day_ (if it can even be called a "day" in eternal perception--which is surely the _realm_ in which the resurrection took place). That's not even important. No one who was actually _there_ when the "event" took place has left us a record of what took place, except God (just like the creation "story"), and we all know that he doesn't express himself in "space-time" language unless its meant to convey something quite beyond what mere words can express.


And place your pre-pub orders now for the forthcoming _Framing-Up the House of God: the A-historic Nature of the Theocratic Kingdom,_ and the autobiography of the author, _"I've Been Framed! How the Conservatives Twisted My Theology Into Irreverence_.


----------



## Robin (Jul 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> And place your pre-pub orders now for the forthcoming _Framing-Up the House of God: the A-historic Nature of the Theocratic Kingdom,_ and the autobiography of the author, _"I've Been Framed! How the Conservatives Twisted My Theology Into Irreverence_.





...will you autograph a copy for me, Bruce? 

R.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 2, 2005)

Suuuure. No Problem. 
Just submit 59.95 for one, or 89.95 (special discount!) for both.
Plus 20.00 postage and handling.
Pre-paid, of course. Send the money straight to my off-shore retirement account. 
Take up all shipping issues with the printer.

I know it's steep, but when you are getting published by the prestedigitous Oxfurd Univarsity Press, the books don't come cheep.



 woo. hoo.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 12, 2005)

Didn't mean to resurrect another thread but I had some questions, and I suppose, following Bruce, that it's not important when the thread is resurrected so long it is, eh? 


> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...


How are these important things lost in the traditional view? I see how they are in fact lost in the logical consequences of the Framework view (i.e. rejecting the Sabbath, allowing for evolution, etc.). 



> The age of the earth is another issue altogether. I hold to the "old" model. Measuring the age of the earth via the genealogies in the Bible is erroneous -- plus, that is NOT why the "begets" are there.
> (Plus, I believe in dinosaurs ) To answer your Q, Chris, you probably won't be a young-earther if you understand FI, but you're free to be.


How is measuring by the listed ages erroneous? Just curious. Why is geneological line the important but the speicific ages and numbers not important? If ages were not important then why was such great detail used in writing them down? Are the numbers just symbolic? Poetic? Erroneous? Why would God preserve them for so long in His inspired Word? 

Kline specifically states, as I quoted in a post above, that He is an old earther and adamantly rejects the young earth view, and that his theory could allow for the theory of evolution even though he personally rejects it. On what hermenuetical grounds he rejects it, I'm not sure. 



> As Patrick noted in another thread, the creation account is not there for speculation on either the length of days; the age of the earth or talking snakes. Likewise, Scriptures' genealogies are not there to trace the age of the earth; when the Flood happened or other self-indulgent, ignorant distractions.


I'm not sure which quote of mine you are refering too. I in fact do believe the creation accounts do teach us all these things, along with all the escatological stuff you have been mentioning. I see no conflict between the traditional view and the redemptive historical motifs that follow from Genesis. In fact, I believe the redemptive historical themes eventually fall apart when the FH is assimilated, as Bruce has so well illustrated with the example of the resurrection. The exegesis is flawed, and eventually will end up with liberal interpretations of the whole Bible when followed consistently. History isn't important. It's the common theology of the events that is important. It's only the Christ of faith that matters not the historical details. And so on... 

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by puritansailor]


----------

